Opinion ID: 2115684
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant also challenges instruction 5 as given.

Text: The only objection asserted by trial counsel with reference thereto was, [S]aid instruction does not fairly and accurately represent the law in this situation and is likely to mislead and confuse the jury specifically regarding the circumstances under which Defendant might use reasonable force to prevent the illegal taking of his property. Here again the new trial motion makes no reference to this subject. On appeal defendant's attorney additionally asserts instruction 5 combined elements of proof to be established by the prosecution and defendant's defense, thereby creating confusion. This was not the objection asserted in course of trial. Being raised here the first time we are not required to consider it. In that regard Rule 196 directs, in part, all objections to instructions must specify the objectionable matter, on what grounds, and none other will thereafter be considered. See State v. Ford, 259 Iowa 744, 751-752, 145 N.W.2d 638. See also State v. Hamilton, 179 N.W.2d 369, 371 (Iowa); State v. Brown, 172 N.W.2d 152, 157-160 (Iowa); Schall v. Lorenzen, 166 N.W.2d 795, 797 (Iowa). Furthermore, assuming, arguendo, the complaint registered on appeal embraces that interposed by trial counsel, it still remains there is actually nothing definite for us to consider. As aforesaid, the objection initially made was to the effect instruction 5 would likely mislead the jury regarding reasonable force defendant might employ in protecting his property. This is best characterized as an omnibus statement which hardly qualifies as a specific objection. It alerted trial court to no particular error, if any, to be corrected. See generally, Vint v. Ashland, 258 Iowa 591, 600-602, 139 N.W.2d 457; State v. Kramer, 252 Iowa 916, 918-919, 109 N.W.2d 18; 1 Reid's Branson Instructions to Juries, (3d ed.), § 173; 88 C.J.S. Trial § 422. IV. Admittedly, however, instruction 5 is lengthy, but that alone does not make it prejudicially erroneous. See 88 C.J.S. Trial § 335; 53 Am.Jur., Trial, § 558. Cf. State v. Blair, 209 Iowa 229, 235, 223 N.W. 554. The jury was thereby told what must be proved by the State before defendant could be found guilty, then explained his rights in the exercise of reasonable force to prevent an unlawful taking of property. The inclusion in one instruction of a proper direction regarding proof essential to convict, and elements of a defense, though never encouraged, is not per se reversible error. By way of analogy this court has repeatedly held, all instructions given are to be considered together. State v. Upton, 167 N.W.2d 625, 630 (Iowa). See also State v. Jiles, 258 Iowa 1324, 1336-1338, 142 N.W.2d 451. V. In keeping with The Code 1966, Section 793.18, the instructions given have been duly considered. Although those here questioned are not necessarily approved as to form, we find in them no such error as can be said to have deprived defendant of a fair trial. Affirmed.