Opinion ID: 2612854
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Further Instructions

Text: In his final claim, Lowseth argues that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to further instruct the jury on the meaning of the phrase threatens to use when, during deliberations, the jury asked: In an aggravated assault charge, does the defendant have to see the victim? Lowseth claims that since the jury asked this particular question, they were confused as to what constitutes threatens to use, and therefore, the court should have further instructed the jury on the meaning of threatens to use. Concerning claims of error involving jury instructions, we have said, [A] trial court's ruling on an instruction will not constitute reversible error absent a showing of prejudice, and prejudice will not be said to result unless it is demonstrated that the instruction confused or misled the jury with respect to the proper principles of law. DeJulio v. Foster, 715 P.2d 182, 186 (Wyo. 1986) (citing Cervelli v. Graves, 661 P.2d 1032 (Wyo.1983)). Instruction No. 7 provided: The phrase threatens to use as a element of the offense of aggravated assault, requires proof of an actual threat of physical injury during the act of employing a deadly weapon. The language in this instruction, which was offered by Lowseth over the prosecutor's objection and given by the court, is taken directly from Johnston v. State, 747 P.2d 1132, 1134 (Wyo.1987). It is an accurate statement of law approved by this court and is not confusing. As Lowseth acknowledges, because he failed to object to the trial court's refusal to further instruct the jury after its inquiry, we review this claim for plain error only. Johnston, 747 P.2d at 1133-34. The jury's questionIn an aggravated assault charge, does the defendant have to see the victim?is not one which required the trial court to apply some clear and unequivocal rule of law, e.g., where the trial court failed to instruct on the necessary elements of the crime. See Vigil v. State, 859 P.2d 659, 662 (Wyo.1993). In addition, Instruction No. 7 accurately reflects the law and, from the question posed by the jury, it is not clear that the jury was confused by Instruction No. 7; rather, it appears that the jury sought an additional, albeit unnecessary, instruction. Therefore, we find no plain error because Lowseth has not demonstrated violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law nor has he shown prejudice or that the jury was confused or misled by Instruction No. 7.