Opinion ID: 1308602
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Instructions on Credibility.

Text: Mitchell proposed several instructions on credibility. The district court refused to give these instructions. Instead, the court gave the uniform jury instruction on credibility. See II Iowa Crim.Jury Instructions 100.7 (1988). Mitchell contends the court erred because the court's instruction on credibility does not impress upon the jury the importance of lying under oath as opposed to other lies. We review jury instructions for errors at law. State v. Kellogg, 542 N.W.2d 514, 516 (Iowa 1996). Trial courts need not instruct in the language of requested instructions so long as the topic is covered by the court's own instructions. State v. Doss, 355 N.W.2d 874, 881 (Iowa 1984). Moreover, trial courts should generally adhere to the uniform instructions. State v. Hatter, 414 N.W.2d 333, 336 (Iowa 1987). We have carefully reviewed Mitchell's proposed instructions on credibility and compared them to the uniform instruction the court gave. We totally agree with the district court's following assessment in denying Mitchell's requested instructions: The court believes that [the court's instruction on credibility] adequately covers all of the concepts contained in the defendant's requested instructions. The jury is told that they can believe all, part or none of any witness' testimony. They are told they can consider many factors in deciding what to believe. They are given examples. The examples include inconsistent statements, and inconsistent statements can be under oath or not under oath. The court sees no value to the jury in attempting to comment further on any of the particular aspects of the evidence received in this case. You are certainly free to include in your argument to the jury that the evidence will not warrant some particular conclusion or will warrant some particular conclusion. In short, the court's instruction correctly conveyed to the jury all of the relevant concepts regarding credibility.