Opinion ID: 1669169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Alternative Findings

Text: As to the first attack, Hankins takes exception not to the contents of the three instructions in question, but urges they were defective in that not guilty was placed last in the order of alternative findings the jury could make. While not in the form of step instructions, see State v. Patterson, 232 Neb. 304, 440 N.W.2d 242 (1989), the instructions in question listed the jury's options in the following order: (1) guilty of first degree murder, (2) guilty of second degree murder, (3) not responsible by reason of insanity, or (4) not guilty. Hankins' claim, however, is without merit. If jury instructions, when read together, correctly state the law, are not misleading, and adequately cover the issues, there is no prejudicial error. State v. Cole, 231 Neb. 420, 436 N.W.2d 209 (1989); State v. Kistenmacher, 231 Neb. 318, 436 N.W.2d 168 (1989); State v. Donhauser, 231 Neb. 114, 435 N.W.2d 186 (1989). Furthermore, the wording of jury instructions is within the trial court's discretion. State v. Donhauser, supra . Having instructed the jury that Hankins was presumed innocent, the order of the alternative findings is not misleading and of no import in this case, as the instructions read together properly state the law.