Opinion ID: 2210322
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the trial court properly instructed the jury.

Text: Defendant alleges that the trial court erred in adopting State's proposed instruction No. 1. The instruction stated: You are instructed that the statutes of the State of South Dakota provide that it shall be unlawful for any person to drive any motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. Here, the defendant's alternative instruction would have included the words on a public street or highway to the foregoing instruction. First, we note that the language of the court's instruction, supra, exactly follows the language of the statute (SDCL 32-23-1). Further, it must be observed that the court's instruction No. 7 additionally provided: The essential elements of the offense of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, each of which must be proved by the State beyond a reasonable doubt, are: 1. That at the time and place alleged in the Information; 2. The defendant drove a motor vehicle on a public street or highway; and, 3. That while driving the defendant was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. (Emphasis added.) In State v. Stapleton, 387 N.W.2d 28, 31 (S.D.1986), we reiterated that ... it is not error to refuse to give jury instructions which are already embodied in other given instructions. State v. Cook, 319 N.W.2d 809 (S.D.1982); State v. Grey Owl, 295 N.W.2d 748 (S.D.1980). Jury instructions are adequate when, considered as a whole, they give the full and correct statement of the law applicable to the case. Cook, supra ; Grey Owl, supra . Appellant has the burden to show not only error, but prejudicial error to the effect that under the evidence, the jury might and properly would have returned a different verdict if appellant's instructions had been given. Cook, supra ; Grey Owl, supra ; Lytle v. Morgan, 270 N.W.2d 359 (S.D.1978). We find that, reviewing the jury instructions as a whole, the instructions are correct statements of the law as applied to the case. Affirmed. WUEST, MORGAN and SABERS, JJ., concur. HENDERSON, J., concurs with writing.