Opinion ID: 1290451
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alleged instruction error:

Text: Appellant argues that prejudicial error has been committed because his requested Instruction No. A was not given to the jury. The offered instruction is: You cannot convict the defendant of the charge of grand larceny if you find that it was after he obtained possession of the personal property and carried it away that he formed the intent to steal the property in question. The court did give Instruction No. 11, which is: You are further instructed that in order to find the defendant guilty of grand larceny, you must first determine that at the time he took and carried away the property belonging to another, he intended to steal the property. Instruction No. 11 says the same thing as refused Instruction No. A except that it uses a different wording arrangement. They both say to the jury that the felonious intent must be formulated when the goods are taken in order that the crime of grand larceny be committed. Where one of the defendant's proffered instructions is substantially the same as one given by the court, the defendant is without standing to complain of the court's refusal. Benson v. State, Wyo., 571 P.2d 595, 597. The law of proffered Instruction No. A having been adequately covered in given Instruction No. 11, there was no error in the refusal. Affirmed.