Opinion ID: 1057558
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Request for Special Jury Instruction

Text: During the course of the trial, the defendant proposed a special request for the trial court to supplement the jury instructions as follows: For you to find the accused guilty of aggravated child abuse the State must prove that the Defendant affirmatively committed an abusive action which resulted in serious bodily injury to the victim. Failure by either defendant to protect or seek treatment is not proof of abuse as to satisfy the elements of child abuse. The trial court denied the request, holding that the statutory language on child abuse and neglect and aggravated child abuse sufficiently explained that the State was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant knowingly, other than by accidental means, treat[ed] a child under [six] years of age in such a manner as to inflict injury, and that such action resulted in serious bodily injury to the child. See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-15-401 & -402. The defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the instruction would have clarified the obligation of the State to prove aggravated child abuse through infliction of injury rather than aggravated child abuse through neglect. In response, the State submits that the instruction sought by the defendant regarding [f]ailure ... to protect or seek treatment was far too broad and, for example, could have been interpreted to preclude a conviction for a defendant who actively prevented medical treatment for a severely injured victim. The State further argues that the jury charge was adequate to protect the defendant from a conviction based upon mere neglect. It is well-settled that a defendant has a constitutional right to a complete and correct charge of the law, so that each issue of fact raised by the evidence will be submitted to the jury on proper instructions. State v. Faulkner, 154 S.W.3d 48, 58 (Tenn.2005); State v. Farner, 66 S.W.3d 188, 204 (Tenn.2001); State v. Garrison, 40 S.W.3d 426, 432 (Tenn. 2000). It is the duty of the trial judge without request to give the jury proper instructions as to the law governing the issues raised by the nature of the proceedings and the evidence introduced during trial.... State v. Teel, 793 S.W.2d 236, 249 (Tenn.1990). The purpose of a special instruction is to supply an omission or correct a mistake made in the general charge, to present a material question not treated in the general charge, or to limit, extend, eliminate, or more accurately define a proposition already submitted to the jury. State v. Cozart, 54 S.W.3d 242, 245 (Tenn.2001). The refusal to grant a special request for an instruction is error only when the general charge fails to fully and fairly provide the applicable law, considering the instructions in their entirety and reading them as a whole rather than in isolation. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d at 280. The trial court, which concluded that the pattern instruction on aggravated child abuse adequately informed the jury of the State's obligation to prove the knowing infliction of an injury and resulting bodily injury, provided the following instruction on aggravated child abuse: For you to find the defendant guilty ... the state must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the following essential elements: (1) that the defendant did knowingly, other than by accidental means, treat a child in such a manner as to inflict injury; (2) that the act of abuse resulted in serious bodily injury to the child; and (3) that the child was six (6) years of age or less. In our view, the trial court's charge was adequate. [17] Knowingly and other than by accidental means inflicting injury on a child less than six qualifies as terminology which can be readily understood. The trial court's refusal to supplement the pattern instruction did not constitute reversible error.