Opinion ID: 1892522
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury Instructions (Issues 1 and 2)

Text: Scholten argues that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that simple assault was a lesser included offense and in rejecting proffered instructions on self-defense. We reject both arguments. Scholten's first argument fails because there was insufficient evidence to support jury instructions on simple assault. [3] However, [t]he trial court must instruct the jury upon a lesser included offense if the evidence presented would support a conviction on the lesser charge. State v. Rich, 417 N.W.2d 868, 870 (S.D. 1988). [T]he trial court is not required to instruct the jury even as to those offenses which might be included, but which the evidence would not warrant. State v. Feuillerat, 292 N.W.2d 326, 334 (S.D.1980). There must be sufficient evidence, however, when read in the light most favorable to the defendant, which would justify a jury in concluding that the greater offense was not committed and that a lesser offense was, in fact, committed. Rich, at 871. The evidence must throw doubt upon the greater offense. Id, (quoting Feuillerat, and State v. Melvin, 49 Wis.2d 246, 252, 181 N.W.2d 490, 494 (1970)). The facts of this case established that truly massive, near-fatal injury was inflicted upon Larson. Three independent eyewitnesses testified that Scholten repeatedly kicked Larson as he lay unconscious. This evidence, combined with medical testimony that Larson's injuries were most consistent with prolonged kicking by a number of assailants, removes any doubt that Scholten was guilty of aggravated assault rather than simple assault. Because there is insufficient evidence to raise doubt that simple assault was committed rather than aggravated assault, we do not consider whether the legal test [4] for necessarily included offenses has been met. We likewise disagree with Scholten's argument that the trial court erred in rejecting jury instructions concerning self-defense, proposed by Gillespie and himself. In so holding, we note that this Court, in State v. Gillespie, 445 N.W.2d 661, handed down August 30, 1989, deemed the substance of Gillespie's proffered instructions to be embodied in those actually given to the jury. Scholten's refused instruction founders on the same rock as Gillespie's: It is substantively the same as those instructions which were given. Scholten asserts that an additional sentence in his instruction (The defendant is not required to nicely gauge or measure the force used in self-defense, but he may use any means that appear reasonably necessary.) was essential to the jury's deliberations. This is unsound, as the extra words are merely a restatement of the concept, explicit in the trial court's instructions, that force used in self-defense must be reasonable. When the instructions to the jury in this action are viewed as a whole, we find that they adequately present the law without prejudicing the defendant. State v. Fox, 313 N.W.2d 38, 41 (S.D.1981); State v. Poss, 298 N.W.2d 80, 84 (S.D.1980).