Opinion ID: 884658
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 47 Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it refused Defense Proposed Jury Instruction No. 8? ¶ 48 We review jury instructions in a criminal case to determine whether the instructions, as a whole, fully and fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case. State v. Goulet (1997), 283 Mont. 38, 41, 938 P.2d 1330, 1332. The district court has broad discretion in instructing the jury, and, while the defendant is entitled to have instructions on his theory of the case, he is not entitled to an instruction concerning every nuance of his argument. Goulet, 283 Mont. at 41, 938 P.2d at 1332. ¶ 49 Appellant offered the following proposed instruction No. 8 which provides: To convict Jerry Lantis of Accountability (Deliberate Homicide) by being legally accountable for the conduct of Michael Barnaby, the State must prove the following elements: 1. That the crime of Deliberate Homicide as defined in Instruction No._ has been committed by Michael Barnaby; 2. That Jerry Lantis solicited, aided, abetted, agreed or attempted to aid Michael Barnaby in the planning or commission of Deliberate Homicide; 3. That Jerry Lantis participated either before or during commission of Deliberate Homicide; and 4. That Jerry Lantis had the concurrent specific purpose to promote or facilitate the commission of Deliberate Homicide. The District Court refused this jury instruction on the grounds that it was cumulative, and that the States Proposed Jury Instruction Nos. 14 and 22, as modified by the court, adequately instructed the jury on deliberate homicide by accountability. State Proposed Instruction No. 14 (given as Courts Instruction No. 23) provides in relevant part: To convict the defendant of ACCOUNTABILITY FOR DELIBERATE HOMICIDE by being legally accountable for the conduct of another, the State must prove the following elements: 1. That the crime of DELIBERATE HOMICIDE as defined in Instruction No. 18 has been committed; and 2. that the defendant, with common purpose with the principal offender, either before or during the commission of an offense, and with the purpose to promote or facilitate such commission solicits, aids, abets, agrees, or attempts to aid, such other person in the planning or commission of the offense. State Proposed Instruction No. 22 (given as Courts Instruction No. 22) set out verbatim the language of § 45-2-201(2)(b), MCA, and added the following caveat: You may not infer purpose or knowledge on the part of Mr. Lantis solely from actions of Mr. Barnaby. ¶ 50 Appellant claims that the given instructions misstated the law on mental state for deliberate homicide by accountability. Citing Rothacher, Appellant argues that the jury should have been instructed that in order to convict him of deliberate homicide by accountability, the State was required to prove that he had the specific intent to promote or facilitate commission of deliberate homicide. We reject Appellants argument for the reasons already discussed in Issue 1 of this Opinion. Having reviewed the given instructions, we conclude that they correctly and adequately instructed the jury on the mental state for deliberate homicide by accountability.