Opinion ID: 1251916
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: adequate instructions

Text: In any event, the instructions given by the court were adequate to advise the jury of appellant's theory, i.e., that he believed he had the right to refuse delivery of the trailer and thus did not have an intent to steal. In Instruction No. 3, the jury was informed that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential fact necessary to constitute the offenses charged. Intent to steal was set forth as an element of the crime in Instructions 7 and 8, with the direction in Instruction No. 8 that: If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of these elements has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the Defendant not guilty. Instruction No. 10A provided: Intent to steal means one must intend to deprive the owner of the possession of his property permanently or for an unreasonable length of time. Specific intent was defined in Instruction No. 16 as follows: To constitute the crime charged of unlawful conversion by bailee and possession of a firearm with intent to unlawfully threaten, there must be a union of two essential elements, an act forbidden by law and a specific intent. Specific intent means more than the general intent to commit the act. To prove a crime which involves specific intent, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. That the Defendant did the act charged; and 2. That he did it with the specific intent described in the crime charged. The specific intent must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as any other fact in the case. The jury was adequately instructed on the necessity for specific intent, and it is obvious that appellant's contention that he lacked specific intent was fairly placed before the jury. I would affirm.