Opinion ID: 2216408
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Missing Element in Third Degree Arson Instruction.

Text: The trial court failed to instruct on an element of Third Degree Arson: that the burned property's value must exceed twenty-five dollars. SDCL 22-33-3. No one objected to this omission. Failure to object to the jury instruction or propose an alternative instruction waives the issue for appeal. Burtzlaff, 493 N.W.2d at 7; State v. O'Connor, 378 N.W.2d 248, 256 (S.D.1985). When an issue is not properly preserved for appeal we will not address it unless plain error is shown. State v. Holloway, 482 N.W.2d 306, 309 (S.D.1992). [T]he plain error rule applies only in exceptional cases, and then it must be applied cautiously; the rule does not encompass every error which occurs at trial, but only those errors which are both obvious and substantial. Id. Plain error exists if the omission of the twenty-five dollar element substantially impaired Hage's rights, thereby prejudicing him. State v. Brammer, 304 N.W.2d 111, 114 (S.D.1981). Prejudicial error is error which in all probability must have produced some effect upon the jury's verdict and is harmful to the substantial rights of the party assigning it. State v. Phillips, 489 N.W.2d 613, 617 (S.D.1992); State v. Michalek, 407 N.W.2d 815, 818 (S.D.1987). Hage must also prove that under the evidence, the jury probably would have returned a different verdict. State v. Weisenstein, 367 N.W.2d 201, 206 (S.D.1985). Hage was convicted of four Third Degree Arsons for setting fire to a school bus, a dentist's office (complete with equipment and located in an office building), the Midtown Plaza office building, and the Livermore home. No one has even implied that these properties might be worth less than the statutory minimum. Granted, the proper course of action would have been to place the element in the instructions; nevertheless, this is not a fatal flaw requiring reversal or a new trial. The burned properties obviously had considerable value. Hage was neither prejudiced by the omission nor do we believe that the jury would have returned a different verdict had the element been properly included. State v. Fields, 488 N.W.2d 919 (S.D.1992); State v. Willis, 370 N.W.2d 193 (S.D.1985). Thus we find no plain error. We affirm all convictions. MILLER, C.J., and AMUNDSON, J., and WUEST, Retired Justice, concur. SABERS, J., concurs in result. GILBERTSON, J., not having been a member of the Court at the time this case was considered, did not participate.