Opinion ID: 2277075
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Jury Instructions Multiple Sexual Offenses

Text: The next issue raised by Feddiman in this appeal also relates to the multiple charges of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree. Feddiman's attorney prepared a written instruction and requested that it be given by the trial judge. The avowed purpose of the proposed instruction was to assist the jury in determining whether the numerous counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree were one continuing manner of behavior and, therefore, constituted only one act or crime, or if they were indeed, separate acts and therefore, separate crimes. The instruction requested by Feddiman's attorney was based on the reported opinion of Harrell v. State, 277 N.W.2d at 472-73. [29] The Superior Court did not give the jury instruction that was proposed by Feddiman's attorney. However, the Superior Court agreed to specifically instruct the jury on the issue that had been raised. The instruction actually given to the jury by the Superior Court, was as follows: THE COURT: The defendant is charged with eight separate counts of unlawful sexual intercourse in the first degree. In order to find the defendant guilty as to each count, you must find that a separate and distinct act occurred. In determining whether a separate and distinct act occurred, you may consider the time period between the acts; any change in location; the nature of the act; the intent of the defendant, that is, his specific intent to commit a separate additional sexual act; his muscle contraction; that is, did a muscle contraction or ejaculation complete a separate and distinct act. Please note that the Delaware statute does not require emission to complete a sexual act. You may consider these factors, but you are to use your common sense and consider all of the evidence in determining, as to each count, whether a separate and distinct act occurred. A defendant is entitled to a correct statement of the substantive law. Miller v. State, Del.Supr., 224 A.2d 592, 596 (1966). However, the Superior Court was not required to instruct the jury in the precise form proposed by Feddiman's attorney. Id. If the substantive law is stated correctly, a trial court's instructions to the jury will not serve as grounds for reversible error if they are `reasonably informative and not misleading, judged by common practices and standards of verbal communication.' Sheeran v. State, Del.Supr., 526 A.2d 886, 894 (1987) (quoting Baker v. Reid, Del.Supr., 57 A.2d 103, 109 (1947)). This Court has held that [w]hether a course of conduct involving multiple sexual assaults permits prosecution for more than one statutory offense, of rape, ultimately turns on the facts, particularly the timing between the sexual acts and the physical movement of the victim between the acts. Wyant v. State, 519 A.2d at 661. [30] In this case, the jury instructions, as given, were clearly a correct statement of the substantive law and were reasonably informative and not misleading, judged by common practices and standards of verbal communications. Baker v. Reid, 57 A.2d at 109. Moreover, the substance of the instructions actually given were not only a correct statement of the law, but were almost exactly what Feddiman's attorney had requested. We find no error in the instructions which were given to the jury on the issue of multiple acts versus a single act of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree.