Opinion ID: 1060393
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 36

Heading: special instruction on last seen alive

Text: Appellants contend that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury that it could not convict Appellants simply because Griffin was last seen alive in their presence. We disagree. The record indicates that the trial court refused to give this special instruction because the charge sets out very clearly ... what has to be proven to establish guilt. Indeed, the charge clearly instructs the jury that it can only convict Appellants of an offense if the State proves the elements of that offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, the charge clearly instructs the jury on the elements of first degree murder and its lesser included offenses and the charge also instructs the jury about criminal responsibility for the conduct of another. In short, the charge accurately and correctly instructs the jury on burden of proof, presumption of innocence, elements of the offenses, and the nature of different kinds of evidence. When the instructions given by the trial judge are a correct statement of the law, and the instructions fully and fairly set forth the applicable law, it is not error for a trial judge to refuse to give a special instruction requested by a party. State v. Bohanan, 745 S.W.2d 892, 897 (Tenn.Crim.App.1987). This issue has no merit.