Opinion ID: 1431933
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alternate Murder Grounds

Text: The defendant asserts that the trial court should have added a sentence instructing jurors that felony murder was an alternate theory to premeditated murder. He wanted only some minimal instruction. The instructions must be read as a whole to determine whether they adequately reflect the law. State v. Haas, 138 Ariz. 413, 425, 675 P.2d 673, 685 (1983). Moreover, if the instructions as a whole properly reflect the law in Arizona, State v. Richardson, 110 Ariz. 48, 50, 514 P.2d 1236, 1238 (1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 929, 94 S.Ct. 1439, 39 L.Ed.2d 487 (1974), and are substantially free from error, State v. Norgard, 103 Ariz. 381, 383, 442 P.2d 544, 546 (1968), the defendant suffers no prejudice by their wording. In the instant matter, the court presented the appropriate felony and premeditated murder instructions separately, as different grounds for a first degree murder conviction, but omitted the defendant's requested commentary. Because the instructions properly reflected Arizona law, the trial judge was not required to supplement them with the defense's commentary. Moreover, we note that the jury was aware that the two theories of murder constituted alternate grounds. The prosecutors, in both closing statements as well as opening remarks, explained in detail the two theories as alternative means of finding the defendant guilty.