Opinion ID: 873654
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: To dispose of the property so as to make it

Text: unlikely that the owner will recover it. [¶42] Dennis did not object to the instructions actually given to the jury; “our review is therefore confined to a search for plain error.” Magnus v. State, 2013 WY 13, ¶ 23, 293 P.3d 459, 467 (Wyo. 2013) (citing Sandoval v. State, 2009 WY 121, ¶ 6, 217 P.3d 393, 395 (Wyo. 2009)). “Our plain error analysis requires that an appellant ‘establish, by reference to the record, a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law in a clear and obvious, not merely arguable, way and that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.’” Magnus, 2013 WY 13, ¶ 23, 293 P.3d at 467 (quoting Joreski v. State, 2012 WY 143, ¶ 11, 288 P.3d 413, 416 (Wyo. 2012)). Material prejudice is shown when a reasonable possibility exists that, but for the error, the jury would have returned a more favorable verdict. Craft v. State, 2012 WY 166, ¶ 21, 291 P.3d 306, 312 (Wyo. 2012) (citation omitted). [¶43] “The purpose of jury instructions is to provide the jury with a foundational legal understanding to enable a reasoned application of the facts to the law. It is crucial that the trial court ‘correctly state the law and adequately cover the relevant issues.’” Walker v. State, 2012 WY 1, ¶ 10, 267 P.3d 1107, 1111 (Wyo. 2012) (internal and external citations omitted). “We do not single out individual jury instructions or parts of them, but rather, we consider the jury instructions as a whole.” Burnett, 2011 WY 169, ¶ 14 267 P.3d at 1087 (citing Bloomfield, 2010 WY 97, ¶ 9, 234 P.3d at 369). “A person is guilty of aggravated burglary in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-301(c)(i) if he, ‘in the course of committing the crime of burglary . . . [i]s or becomes armed with or uses a deadly weapon.’” Counts v. State, 2012 WY 70, ¶ 50, 277 P.3d 94, 108 (Wyo. 2012). Dennis had to enter the Johnsons’ house without their permission and with the intent to commit a larceny in their home to be guilty of a burglary. Id. at ¶ 59, 277 P.3d at 110-11 (citing Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-301(a)). Larceny occurs when “a person . . . steals, takes and carries, leads or drives away property of another with intent to deprive the owner or lawful possessor . . . .” Powell v. State, 2012 WY 106, ¶ 7, 282 P.3d 163, 165 (Wyo. 2012) (quoting Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-402(a)). In reviewing Instruction Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8, and in light of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-301, we find the instructions adequately informed 13 the jury of the element of “burglary,” including the specific intent to commit larceny and the required intent to deprive for larceny. [¶44] In Burnett, we held that a series of instructions adequately informed the jury of the elements of attempted second-degree murder. 2011 WY 169, ¶ 18, 267 P.3d at 1088. In that case, one instruction listed all the elements of attempted second-degree murder but omitted the necessary elements of “maliciously” and “purposely.” Id. Those elements were listed in separate instructions. Id. We held “[t]hese instructions, as a whole, adequately informed the jury that it must find Mr. Burnett had acted purposely and maliciously in order to convict him of attempted second degree murder.” Id. at ¶ 18, 267 P.3d at 1089. Here, the instructions as a whole adequately informed the jury of the necessity of finding that Dennis entered the Johnsons’ home with the intent to commit a larceny and that intent had to include an intent to deprive the Johnsons of their pistol. [¶45] Upon review of the instructions given to the jury, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Dennis’ specific intent instruction. It also did not commit plain error in instructing the jury--the jury was sufficiently informed of the grounds upon which they were to find Dennis guilty of aggravated burglary including the requisite intent to deprive.