Opinion ID: 536574
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Refusal to Read Proposed Jury Instruction

Text: 34 James Westbrook's counsel requested that the court read his proposed jury instruction number 3, which, counsel stated, set out the elements of the offense as concerns [sic] the facts of this case. The instruction read, in relevant part: 35 1. That defendants James Gerald [sic] Westbrook and Shelia Westbrook did knowingly and intentionally manufacture d,1-amphetamine; 36 2. That the substance alleged in the Indictment was in fact d,l-amphetamine. 37 The court denied the request to read this instruction. Instead, it read instruction number 20, which stated in relevant part: 38 1. That the defendants under consideration, at the time and place alleged in the indictment, were engaged in the manufacture of d,l-amphetamine; and 39 2. That such defendant did so knowingly and intentionally. 40 James contends that his proposed instruction set forth his theory of defense, that the government was required to prove that the substance at issue was d,l-amphetamine, and that the court's failure to read the instruction is reversible error. 41 Jury instructions must accurately inform juries of the issues before them and of the permissible ways that they can resolve those issues. A defendant has a right to have an instruction read reflecting his or her theory of the case, provided that the request is made in time and that the instruction is supported by the evidence and correctly states the law. United States v. Jerde, 841 F.2d 818, 820 (8th Cir.1988); United States v. Montgomery, 819 F.2d 847, 851-52 (8th Cir.1987). However, the trial court has broad discretion in choosing the form and language of jury instructions. United States v. Jerde, 841 F.2d at 820; United States v. Montgomery, 819 F.2d at 852. The defendant does not have a right to have the jury instructed on his or her theory of the case exactly as it is proposed. United States v. Jenkins, 701 F.2d 850, 858 (10th Cir.1983). 42 The instruction read by the trial court and the instruction proposed by James both stated that the jury must find the defendants to have engaged in the (1) knowing and intentional (2) manufacture of (3) d,l-amphetamine. The primary difference between the instructions is a matter of form, not substance. James's proposed instruction contains no more detail regarding his defense than does the instruction that was read by the court. The trial court did not err in rejecting the proposed instruction. 43