Opinion ID: 772639
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Government's Use of the Dictionary

Text: 36 Turning to the government's use of a dictionary during closing argument to define the term endanger,  and its comments related to that definition, there was no reversible error. While focused on the last element of the 32(a)(6) charge--thereby endangering the safety of any such aircraft in flight --the government stated: 37 [T]he court does not have for you a legal definition. Perhaps there is no legal definition of what endangering  is. I looked in the dictionary. Endanger is to expose to danger, to imperil -- in other words, not that they actually made it more dangerous, but that they, in my -- I would submit to you danger means increase the risk to the safety, endangering the safety. They increased the risk of danger. 38 Mendoza did not object to the government's statements made during closing argument. Instead, he argued in closing that the government's definition, which he alleged suggested that any increase in the possibility of danger could constitute endangerment, was incorrect. In rebuttal the government stated: 39 But [Mendoza's counsel] interchanged the terms in danger, I-N, second word danger, and endanger, E-N-D, word one, which is the operative word, endanger.  That plane -- it doesn't say that plane has to be in danger. It says, that plane has to have had -- has to have endangered the safety of that plane, endangered the safety. 40