Opinion ID: 1662155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Instruct on the Meaning of Remonstrate

Text: The trial court instructed the jury that merely remonstrating with an officer... does not amount to obstructing or delaying an officer in the performance of his duties. See State v. Rott, 380 N.W.2d 325 (N.D.1986), where the jury was similarly instructed. Cameron contends that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the meaning of remonstrating. We disagree. The trial court told counsel: If [the jurors] have questions, they can ask. And, I have no hesitation in you noting to the Jury if you have questions concerning instructions, you may inquire of the Judge by a note. That is in my instructions. The trial court also advised counsel that I have no objection to his definition or his defining the word to the Jury based upon the dictionary definition that he has provided. The trial court instructed the jury that [i]f it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with the Court, the foreman will send a note by the bailiff. Defense counsel did not avail himself of the opportunity suggested by the trial court to tell the jury that if you have questions concerning instructions, you may inquire of the Judge by a note. In his final argument to the jury, however, defense counsel did define remonstrating in accordance with his request to the court for an instruction defining the word. The jury did not submit any questions to the trial court. The jurors were told of the meaning of remonstrating and we find no reversible error.