Opinion ID: 2630752
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Improper jury instructions in both trials

Text: Nolan alleges that the district court failed to give a proper jury instruction in either trial for the kidnapping charge. Specifically, Nolan contends the instruction was misleading and confused the jury regarding the movement of the victim that must occur to support a conviction of both sexual assault and kidnapping. The district court has broad discretion to settle jury instructions, and this court reviews the district court's decision for an abuse of that discretion or judicial error. [18] `An abuse of discretion occurs if the district court's decision is arbitrary or capricious or if it exceeds the bounds of law or reason.' [19] We perceive no abuse of discretion or judicial error. Nolan specifically focuses on the possibility that because of the movement required to commit a sexual assault, every sexual assault would also include a kidnapping. However, this concern fails to recognize that the district court gave an additional instruction requiring the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt either: (1) that the movement of the victim was not incidental to the sexual assault and that the movement of the victim substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim over and above that necessarily present in the sexual assault; or (2) that the victim was restrained and such restraint increased the risk of harm to the victim. Thus, the requirements necessary to find Nolan guilty of both kidnapping and sexual assault were provided in the district court's instructions. We recently approved such an instruction for dual criminality. [20] Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving the instructions for kidnapping.