Opinion ID: 2287329
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: adequacy of jury charge on the elements of robbery

Text: Appellant challenges the performance of trial counsel for failing to object to the court's allegedly incomplete and confusing jury instructions on the offense of robbery. As stated above, we first determine whether the underlying issue  that the jury charge was erroneous  possesses arguable merit. We conclude that it does not. A court's charge to the jury will be upheld if it adequately and accurately reflects the law and was sufficient to guide the jury properly in its deliberations. Commonwealth v. Person, 345 Pa.Super. 341, 345, 498 A.2d 432, 434 (1985) (citations omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Bey, 249 Pa.Super. 185, 196, 375 A.2d 1304, 1310 (1977). In reviewing the court's charge for error, we must read the charge as a whole; error will not be predicated upon an isolated excerpt. Commonwealth v. Wallace, 347 Pa.Super. 248, 256, 500 A.2d 816, 820 (1985) (citations omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Ohle, 503 Pa. 566, 582, 470 A.2d 61, 70 (1983) (appellate examination of jury charge must be based on examination of it as whole to determine whether it was fair or prejudicial) (citation omitted). It is the general effect of the charge that controls. Commonwealth v. Wallace, supra (citation omitted). Commonwealth v. Magwood, 371 Pa.Super. 620, 622-23, 538 A.2d 908, 909 (1988), appeal denied 519 Pa. 653, 546 A.2d 57 (1988). The statutory definitions of the elements of the offense of robbery are set forth above. Appellant challenges the court's instructions as erroneous for failing to adequately define attempt to commit theft. Appellant argues that the court should have defined attempt to commit theft because the only aspect of robbery that could arguably be present in this case is attempt to commit a theft. We disagree. As we noted above, the jury could have reasonably inferred that an actual theft occurred from the fact that DeShields had $280 in his pocket before the attack and he was missing the money after the attack. The jury instructions adequately defined theft: BY THE COURT: You have to find that there was a theft and that the injury was caused, serious bodily injury was caused during the taking of someone else's property with the intention of depriving that person of that property. . . N.T. September 7, 1988 Volume II at 148-150. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the court's charge, since the charge adequately defined theft. Even if the only basis for the robbery conviction was that appellant inflicted serious bodily injury during the course of an attempted theft, appellant's ineffectiveness claim would fail. We note that the trial court's instructions on attempted theft were deficient to the extent that they did not clearly state that the jury must find that appellant took a substantial step toward completing the theft. Appellant's ineffectiveness claim fails, however, because trial counsel's failure to submit a proper jury charge was not prejudicial. This Court has held that where the evidence of the case supports the omitted jury instruction, the failure to define the element to the jury is not prejudicial. Commonwealth v. Humpheys, 367 Pa.Super. 154, 532 A.2d 836, 840 (1987), appeal denied 518 Pa. 624, 541 A.2d 1136 (1988), citing Commonwealth v. Ehrsam, 355 Pa.Super. 40, 59-60, 512 A.2d 1199, 1208-09 (1986); Commonwealth v. Goins, 348 Pa.Super. 22, 501 A.2d 279 (1985); Commonwealth v. Mlinarich, 345 Pa.Super. 269, 287, 498 A.2d 395, 403-404 (1985) (en banc), aff'd 518 Pa. 247, 542 A.2d 1335 (1988). As we noted above, the evidence in this case establishes, at the very least, the elements of an attempted theft. We find that trial counsel's failure to object to the court's charge on attempted theft was not prejudicial.