Opinion ID: 1941530
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Standard Relevant to the Jury Instruction Issue

Text: In accordance with G.L.1956 § 8-2-38, a trial justice must instruct the jury on the law to be applied to the issues raised by the parties. State v. Lynch, 770 A.2d 840, 846 (R.I.2001); see also State v. Imbruglia, 913 A.2d 1022, 1030 (R.I.2007). A trial justice's jury instructions will be upheld when the challenged instructions adequately cover the law and, when viewed as a whole from the perspective of a jury that is composed of ordinary, intelligent lay people, the instructions do not reduce or shift the state's burden of proof. State v. Ensey, 881 A.2d 81, 95 (R.I.2005); see also State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 517 (R.I.2004); State v. Keiser, 796 A.2d 471, 472 (R.I.2002) (mem.). When this Court reviews jury instructions, the analytical process that we employ is de novo. Imbruglia, 913 A.2d at 1031; see also State v. Graham, 941 A.2d 848, 855 (R.I.2008). When jury instructions are challenged this Court will not examine a single sentence apart from the rest of the instructions, but rather the challenged portions must be examined in the context in which they were rendered. State v. Kittell, 847 A.2d 845, 849 (R.I. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Cotty, 899 A.2d 482, 497 (R.I.2006) (In reviewing the appropriateness of a trial justice's jury instructions, this Court examines the instructions as a whole in light of the meaning and interpretation that a jury composed of ordinary, intelligent lay persons would give them.) (internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Krushnowski, 773 A.2d 243, 246 (R.I. 2001) ([W]e review challenged portions of jury instructions in the context in which they were rendered.) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, even if an instruction is erroneous, reversal is warranted only if a jury could have been misled to the prejudice of the complaining party. Graham, 941 A.2d at 855; see also Hodges v. Brannon, 707 A.2d 1225, 1228 (R.I. 1998); Anter v. Ambeault, 104 R.I. 496, 501, 245 A.2d 137, 139 (1968).