Opinion ID: 901120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury regarding specific intent.

Text: [¶ 32.] Talarico claims that the trial court erred in not giving a separate specific intent instruction for grand theft and petty theft. The trial court gave one instruction on specific intent. Instruction No. 10 reads as follows: In the crime of theft, there must exist in the mind of the perpetrator the specific intent to take or exercise control over property of another with intent to deprive the other person of it. If specific intent did not exist, this crime has not been committed. Furthermore, Instruction No. 16 stated: An element of the crime of third degree burglary is that the unlawful entering in an unoccupied structure was with the specific intent to commit the crime of theft, that is, with the specific intent of taking or exercising control over the property of another with the intent to deprive the owner of it. The offense is complete when the unlawful entering is made with such specific intent, regardless of whether any property is actually taken and carried away. Talarico argues that the reference to theft in Instruction No. 10 was vague and an instruction for grand theft and petty theft should have been given. [¶ 33.] During the settling of the jury instructions, defense counsel did not object to the proposed instruction on specific intent and did not propose any instructions. This Court has held [f]ailure to object to the jury instruction or propose an alternative instruction waives the issue for appeal. State v. Hage, 532 N.W.2d 406, 412 (S.D.1995) (citations omitted). Therefore, this issue was not preserved for appeal and we will not address it unless plain error is shown. Id. (citing State v. Holloway, 482 N.W.2d 306, 309 (S.D.1992)). As previously stated the plain error rule is only invoked in exceptional circumstances. The defendant has the burden of establishing prejudice. Dufault, 2001 SD 66, ¶ 8, 628 N.W.2d at 757. Further, to reverse a conviction for failure to give a proposed instruction, the defendant must show that the jury would have returned a different verdict if the proposed instruction was given. State v. Webster, 2001 SD 141, ¶ 7, 637 N.W.2d 392, 394 (citations omitted). [¶ 34.] Talarico claims Instruction No. 10 was too vague and not specific enough to grand theft or petty theft. It appears that the defense is alleging that Instruction No. 10 should have been given twice in reference to grand theft and petty theft. We do not find this argument persuasive. Talarico has provided no evidence or authority in support of this proposition. In addition Talarico has failed to show that had the instruction been offered twice that there would have been a different verdict. Talarico has shown no prejudice. The instructions given were proper. We affirm.