Opinion ID: 1292055
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Implication of Drug Use

Text: Anderson argues that the district court erred in including the words or of any drug in the jury instruction when no evidence was offered at trial that Anderson was under the influence of any drugs. Anderson relies on State v. Adams, 251 Neb. 461, 558 N.W.2d 298 (1997). There, a jury received an instruction stating, `This is a criminal case in which the State of Nebraska has charged [the defendant] with causing serious bodily injury by driving under the influence of alcoholic liquor or drugs. ' (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 467, 558 N.W.2d at 302. Another instruction stated, `The material elements which the State must prove by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict the defendant of causing serious bodily injury while driving under the influence of alcoholic liquor or drugs are as follows . . . .' (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 465, 558 N.W.2d at 301. We concluded that including the word drugs in the instructions was plain error because it implied that the defendant was a drug user and because there was no evidence in the record regarding drug use by the defendant. Upon careful consideration of our decision in State v. Adams, supra , we decline to apply it here to reverse Anderson's conviction. In an appeal based on a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejudicial or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant. State v. Weaver, 267 Neb. 826, 677 N.W.2d 502 (2004). Furthermore, jury instructions must be read as a whole, and if they fairly present the law so that the jury could not be misled, there is no prejudicial error. Id. Viewed as a whole, we conclude that the jury instructions do not make the same implication as that made in State v. Adams, supra . In Adams, the implication that the defendant may have been a drug user was created by including the word drugs in statements about what the defendant had been charged with and could be convicted of. The same cannot be said of the instructions in this case. In jury instruction No. 2, the jury was told that count I of the information charged Anderson with operat[ing] a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and caus[ing] serious bodily harm. The word drugs does not appear in this instruction. In jury instruction No. 3, the jury was told it could find Anderson guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol causing serious bodily injury, driving under the influence of alcohol, or not guilty. The instruction said nothing relating to Anderson's driving under the influence of any drug. The instruction did use the word drug but only when the instruction quoted Neb.Rev.Stat. § 60-6,196 (Cum.Supp.2002). Read as a whole, the instructions conveyed to the jury that Anderson was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, but not drugs. Anderson's argument is without merit.