Opinion ID: 2234065
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Jury Instruction: Other Crime

Text: The State alleged the aggravating circumstance defined by ง 29-2523(1)(b): The murder was committed in an effort to conceal ... the identity of the perpetrator of such crime. Vela contends that his due process rights were violated because in instructing the jury, the district court did not identify the crime for which Vela was allegedly trying to conceal the identity of the perpetrator. 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. [66] In a preliminary instruction given at the beginning of the aggravation hearing, the district court instructed the jury as follows: Nature of the case. This is a criminal case in which the defendant, ... Vela, has pled guilty to five counts of murder in the first degree and thereupon found guilty. You must now determine if one or more of the following aggravating circumstances are true or not true as to... Vela for each count, to wit: .... Two, the murder was committed in an effort to conceal the commission of a crime, or to conceal the identity of the perpetrator of such crime. In instruction No. 3, given at the close of the aggravation hearing, entitled Burden of Proof, the jury was instructed that it was to determine if one or more of the five listed aggravating circumstances are true or not true as to ... Vela for each count of murder. The facts necessary to establish the aggravating circumstance defined by ง 29-2523(1)(a) were listed first and made specific reference to Vela's alleged involvement in the Lundell murder. The facts necessary to establish the aggravating circumstance defined by ง 29-2523(1)(b) were listed second and included no reference to the Lundell murder. The jury completed five verdict forms, one for each count of first degree murder. Reading the jury instructions and verdicts together, we conclude that they clearly refer to the bank murders, and not to the Lundell murder, as Vela suggests in his brief. We find no merit in this assignment of error.