Opinion ID: 4574286
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Proposed “Defense Theory” Instruction

Text: Blocker next argues that the trial court erroneously denied his request to include a defense theory of the case in the jury instructions. The court asked Blocker if he wanted to include a defense theory in the instructions, to which Blocker’s counsel replied: “Some judges don’t allow this, but the defense theory would be that — the defense theory is that the Government has not proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.” The trial court responded: “I think I fall into the category of those [judges] who don’t allow that. If it’s a factual thing, I think the defense theory of the case is really supposed to be facts. But just that they haven’t proven their case, that’s something obviously you can argue.” 38 See id. 39 Id.; see also McFerguson v. United States, 870 A.2d 1199, 1205 (D.C. 2005). 22 “[A] defendant is entitled to an instruction as to any recognized defense for which there exists evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in his favor.” 40 However, “a trial judge . . . retains discretion to decide the form and wording of the instruction.”41 Moreover, “[a]s a general rule, the refusal to give an instruction requested by a defendant is reversible error only if the instruction . . . was not substantially covered in the charge actually delivered to the jury[.]” 42 Furthermore, “[i]n determining whether an instruction is erroneous, we view the instructions given to the jury as a whole.”43 Because Blocker did not object to the trial court’s denial of his proposed defense-theory instruction, we review the claim for plain error.44 Although the instruction was not expressly included, as such, in the trial court’s final instructions to the jury, those instructions reminded the jury numerous times that the government had to prove Blocker’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 40 Holloway v. United States, 25 A.3d 898, 902 n.6 (D.C. 2011) (quoting Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988)). 41 Id. at 903 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 42 Id. 43 Wheeler, 930 A.2d at 244 (internal citation omitted). 44 See supra notes 7 & 8 and accompanying text. 23 Because the substance of Blocker’s requested instruction was “substantially covered in the charge actually delivered to the jury,” the trial court did not err in denying Blocker’s request. 45