Opinion ID: 3169487
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Error in the Instruction

Text: The instruction told the jury that it could find appellant guilty of OWI if he was impaired by the consumption of alcohol ―in any way,‖ in contrast to the ―appreciable degree‖ of impairment required to find him guilty of DUI. As (continued…) jury instruction issue for appeal, Superior Court Criminal Rule 30 requires a party to ‗object[] thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which that party objects and the grounds of the objection.‘ . . . When a defendant fails to object to an instruction in the manner required by Rule 30, we are limited to reviewing that instruction for plain error.‖). 23 Thomas v. United States, 914 A.2d 1, 8 (D.C. 2006) (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997)); see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (setting forth the above four-part test); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). 18 evidenced by the prosecutor‘s closing argument, the two terms are not, and at trial were not understood to be, synonymous. Taylor establishes that the instruction was erroneous because the ―appreciable degree‖ standard of impairment applies to OWI just as it does to DUI.24