Opinion ID: 874752
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: When viewed in the context of all other instructions, Jury Instruction 12 fairly and adequately presented the issues and the state of applicable law to the jury.

Text: Adamcik objected to the wording of Jury Instruction (J.I.) 12 at trial, and argues that J.I. 12 allowed the jury to convict him of first-degree murder even if it did not find that he actually stabbed Stoddart, causing her death. The State argues that J.I. 12 comports with Idaho Criminal Jury Instruction (ICJI) 704, which was approved by the Idaho Court of Appeals in State v. Butcher, 137 Idaho 125, 44 P.3d 1180 (Ct.App.2002). J.I. 12 reads as follows: In order for the Defendant to be guilty of Murder, the State must prove each of the following: 1. On or between the 22nd and 23rd days of September, 2006, 2. in the State of Idaho 3. the Defendant, TOREY MICHAEL ADAMCIK, engaged in conduct which caused the death of Cassie Jo Stoddart, 4. the Defendant acted without justification or excuse, and 5. with malice aforethought. If you find that the State has failed to prove any of the above, then you must find the Defendant not guilty of Murder. If you find that all of the above have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the Defendant guilty of Murder, and then determine if the Defendant is guilty of First or Second Degree Murder. In Butcher, the appellant argued that where he had been charged with murder under both principal and aiding and abetting theories, the term engaged in conduct confused the jury. 137 Idaho at 135, 44 P.3d at 1190. The Court of Appeals noted that the term `engaged in conduct' refers to the specific criminal acts addressed in subsequent instructions on the specific homicide offense charged and any lesser-included offenses, and found that the instruction was neither confusing nor in need of clarification. Id. The court in Butcher noted that under the circumstances of that case, as it had been presented to the jury, the phrase engaged in conduct referred to both the actual killing of the victim and any act constituting aiding and abetting. Id. The Butcher holding is sound and proper for application in this case. Here, as Adamcik points out, the State never expressly presented an aiding and abetting theory of first-degree murder to the jury, and the jury was never instructed on it. The only conduct that the jury was instructed on regarding first-degree murder may be found in J.I. 10, which reads, in relevant part, as follows: