Opinion ID: 2033799
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did trial court properly instruct the jury on the elements of the crime?

Text: Appeal counsel, who was not trial counsel, raises issues relating to jury instructions to which no exceptions were taken at trial. Defendant attempts to overcome this failure to preserve error by asserting the jury was allowed to convict without reference to the statutory offense... on elements of an offense newly created by the jury instructions. This, he argues, resulted in a lack of jurisdiction. However, only matters of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal. See State v. Wiese, 201 N.W.2d 734, 736 (Iowa 1972). Trial court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction, that is, the power to hear the general class of cases to which these proceedings belong. Thus defendant's failure to raise a jurisdictional challenge in trial court waives his right to raise this issue on appeal. Defendant unsuccessfully challenged instruction 18 at trial and this is raised as error on appeal. Instruction 18 defined a firearm as an instrument used in propulsion of shot, shell or bullets by the action of gunpowder or some other explosive within it. It defined dangerous weapon in a manner irrelevant here, and concluded: It is for you to determine, from a consideration of all the facts and circumstances, whether the instrument or device used was a dangerous weapon or a firearm. It is apparent the trial judge was attempting to relate the instruction both to the dangerous weapon in the terrorism counts and the firearm in the section 724.26 count. Of course, a firearm is a dangerous weapon by definition. See § 702.7 (Dangerous weapons include ... pistol, revolver, or other firearm ....). Defendant's trial objection was to the addition of the language or other firearm and grounded on the State's failure to show the gun was capable of inflicting death or serious injury. On appeal defendant complains instruction 18 gave the jury a choice of determining whether the device was a dangerous weapon or a firearm. Because this objection was not raised in trial court we do not consider it here. In any event, as there is no dispute that the device was a shotgun, which is both a dangerous weapon and a firearm, defendant has demonstrated no prejudice. See State v. Gibb, 303 N.W.2d 673, 686 (Iowa 1981). Our holding does not indicate we approve the instruction as given.