Opinion ID: 2259190
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jury Instruction on Sufficiency of the Evidence

Text: Floray, lastly, contends that the trial court erred in charging the jury, over his objection, with the instruction: [t]he testimony of the child complaining witnesses, standing alone, if believed beyond a reasonable doubt, can be sufficient to support a criminal conviction for the crimes charged. Floray contends that although this is a correct statement of the law, it was out of place and misleading in the context of a jury instruction for the purpose of guidance during deliberations of guilt or innocence. Additionally, Floray contends that because the trial court added this unnecessary instruction, it improperly gave the appearance to the jury that the court was focusing on this evidence and it therefore amounted to an improper comment on the evidence in violation of the Delaware Constitution. [23] A trial court's jury instruction is not a ground for reversal if it is reasonably informative and not misleading, judged by common practices and standards of verbal communication. [24] Floray's claim that the instruction in this case was unconstitutional, however, triggers a de novo review. [25] Del. Const. art. IV, § 19 states: Judges shall not charge juries with respect to matters of fact, but may state the question of fact in issue and declare the law. This Court has held that the testimony of the victim alone is sufficient to support a criminal conviction. [26] Consequently, we conclude that the trial judge made a correct statement of the law and not a comment on the evidence. [27] Although we find that the challenged sentence was not a comment on the evidence, we recognize the possibility that placing too much emphasis on specific evidence could, in different circumstances, mislead a jury. It is clear in this case, however, that the challenged jury instruction correctly stated the law, and the only possible objection is that the statement might have misled the jury. As a general rule, a defendant is not entitled to a particular instruction, but he does have the unqualified right to a correct statement of the substance of the law. [28] While it would have been preferable if the challenged sentence had not been included in the jury charge, some inaccuracies are permissible in jury instructions, and a reversal is required only if the deficiency undermined the ability of the jury `to intelligently perform its duty in returning a verdict.' [29] All the jury instructions therefore must be reviewed as a whole and no statement will be viewed in a vacuum. [30] After carefully reviewing all the jury instructions it is clear there was no prejudice to Floray. The jurors were advised that they were the sole judges of the credibility of the witness and of the weight to be given to the testimony of each witness. The jurors were advised several times that they must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. They were advised that it was their duty to reconcile conflicting testimony, if reasonably possible, and to disregard any portion of the testimony that in their judgment was unworthy of consideration. The jury received instructions on possible bias or interest of witness and the instructions emphasized that the determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was entirely up to the jury. We are therefore satisfied that under all the circumstances, the challenged sentence in the jury instructions was harmless error. Although we deem the error harmless because of the lack of demonstrable prejudice, we recognize the possibility of a jury being misled in some situations, and discourage the use of such an instruction in the future.