Opinion ID: 2326611
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Defendant's Requested Jury Instruction

Text: The defendant next asserts that the trial justice erred by refusing to instruct the jury specifically that: The ability of a witness to remember accurately and to relate the events in question is of crucial importance to your assessment of that witness' credibility. The trial justice declined to do so, stating that such an instruction would be a comment on the evidence. The defendant asserts that this refusal impermissibly protected Mary's cognitive and temporal limitations from a valid and important legal instruction for the jury's due consideration. A review of State v. Manocchio, 496 A.2d 931, 934-35 (R.I.1985), precedent cited by defendant, reveals that this Court established only that the ability to cross-examine a witness about the accuracy of his or her memory was of crucial importance. It did not provide any guidance about jury instructions. See State v. Manocchio, 523 A.2d 872, 874 (R.I.1987) (On remand, the Court reaffirmed importance of ability to cross-examine a witness about the accuracy of his or her memory). It is well established that [t]he charge given by a trial justice need only `adequately cover [] the law.' State v. Hazard, 797 A.2d 448, 469 (R.I.2002) (quoting State v. Krushnowski, 773 A.2d 243, 246 (R.I.2001) (per curiam)). `On review, [this Court] examine[s] the instructions in their entirety to ascertain the manner in which a jury of ordinary intelligent lay people would have understood them   .' Hazard, 797 A.2d at 469 (quoting Krushnowski, 773 A.2d at 246). [A] trial justice's refusal to grant a request for jury instruction is not reversible error if the requested charge is fairly covered in the general charge. State v. Price, 706 A.2d 929, 934 (R.I.1998) (quoting Taylor v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 610 A.2d 108, 109 (R.I.1992) (mem.)). The trial justice issued the following instruction to the jury: You can consider the capacity and opportunity any witness had to perceive and understand the matters the witness observed at the time the witness claimed they happened, the witness' ability to remember those matters and the witness' ability to narrate them at trial. That may not be an easy task for you with regard to a witness in this case. But, you must weigh the testimony of each witness as that witness comes to you and as you listened to that testimony. (Emphasis added.) We conclude that the trial justice's instruction was sufficient and we hold that the requested instruction was fairly covered in the given instruction.