Opinion ID: 2572520
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death of the child, and

Text: 3. the person wilfully caused or permitted the child's person or health to be injured or the child to be placed in a situation that endangered the child's person or health. Tiffany first challenges the latter portion of the instruction containing the words or the child to be placed in a situation that endangered the child's person or health. She contends that including these words in the instruction created a variance with the information. She is correct. The amended information alleged: That the defendant, MICHELLE LYNN TIFFANY, on or about the 5th day of August, 1999, in the County of Kootenai, State of Idaho, did unlawfully, but without malice, kill N.D.T., a human being, in the perpetration of an unlawful act, to-wit: Michelle Lynn Tiffany twice covering the mouth and nose of her two month old baby, N.D.T., to the point of unconsciousness, all of which is contrary to the form, force and effect of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Idaho. There is no allegation in the information that Tiffany committed manslaughter by placing Nathan in a situation that endangered his person or health. When the criminal statute provides different ways of committing the crime, the jury instructions should be appropriately tailored to fit the allegations in the charging instrument. State v. Tribe, 123 Idaho 721, 731, 852 P.2d 87, 97 n. 5 (1993). Otherwise, there can be fatal variance between the instructions and the charging document. State v. Windsor, 110 Idaho 410, 716 P.2d 1182 (1986). In this case, however, the variance was not fatal. As Tiffany concedes in her brief, there was no evidence that she placed Nathan anywhere. Thus, the jury's verdict was not based upon that manner of committing the crime of injury to a child. The district court also instructed the jury, You are instructed that the word `wilful' or the word `wilfully,' as used in these instructions, means `purposefully' or `with knowledge of the consequences.' Relying upon State v. Young, 138 Idaho 370, 64 P.3d 296 (2002), the court of appeals held that the giving of the instruction was reversible error, even though Tiffany had not raised that issue on appeal. On the petition for review of the opinion of the court of appeals, however, both parties briefed and argued the issue. We will therefore address it. The word willful is defined as done deliberately: not accidental or without purpose: intentional, self-determined (a ~ injury) (~ murder) (~ distortion of the facts) (alleged ~ failure to register). WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE UNABRIDGED 2617 (Philip Babcock Gove, ed., 1971). The word purposeful is defined as full of determination: guided by a definite aim (he was a ~ man) Id. at 1847. Tiffany has not argued that substituting the word purposefully for the word wilfully would diminish the State's burden of proof under Idaho Code § 18-1501(1), and we fail to see how it would. The district court also defined wilfully to mean with knowledge of the consequences. Substituting that phrase for the word wilfully, the jury would have been instructed that the State must prove that Tiffany caused or permitted Nathan's person or health to be injured with knowledge of the consequences. Such instruction was not inconsistent with State v. Young, 138 Idaho 370, 64 P.3d 296 (2002). At the time of the trial of this case, the district court did not have the benefit of our opinion in State v. Young . Although we hold that the district court did not err in its definition of wilfully, we reiterate, Read by itself section 18-1501(1) leads a jury to the proper analysis.... [I]t should have been instructed as written. 138 Idaho at 373, 64 P.3d at 299. When instructing the jury, trial courts should not attempt to define the word wilfully in that statute.