Opinion ID: 2329237
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Sufficiency of the Jury Instructions

Text: Finally, defendant contends (1) that the trial justice erred when he failed to include among his instructions to the jury two of defendant's proposed instructions and (2) that, as a result, the instructions given by the trial justice were insufficient. The first of the defendant's two proposed instructions reads as follows: The defendant Gary John may not be punished for disobedience of an order which is capable after construction consistent with innocence. The second proposed instruction would have told the jury that, to convict defendant, it must find that [t]he order was served upon the defendant or [that] the defendant was otherwise provided a copy of the no-contact order prior to the date in which he allegedly sent the birthday cards. As to the first of defendant's proposed instructions, the trial justice found that his jury charge had adequately covered the substance of defendant's proposed instruction  albeit in what the justice considered to be more understandable English than that proposed by defendant. As to the second proposed instruction, the trial justice found that such an instruction did not reflect with sufficient precision the law that applies to this case; instead, the justice ruled that there would be a sufficient basis to convict if the jury were to find that defendant was aware of the contents of the court order  regardless of whether he actually received a copy of the order itself. The trial justice charged the jury in part as follows: There are three essential elements to the offenses charged, each of which the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. First, at the time of the offense charged, there must have been a no contact order in effect. Second, the defendant was aware of the [restrictions [15] ] on his behavior by reason of the no contact order; third, the defendant willfully disobeyed the restrictions of the no contact order. When a no contact order is issued by a court, the defendant is enjoined and restrained from having any contact with the alleged victim. The defendant is further ordered not to harass, interfere with, molest, or threaten the victim in any manner. However, a no contact order must be clear, definite and explicit so that the unlearned person can understand its meaning. The defendant may not be convicted for disobedience of a no contact order, the terms of which are not capable of being readily understood. Our standard of review for jury instructions is well settled. State v. Hurteau, 810 A.2d 222, 224 (R.I.2002). In reviewing instructions, it is our role to `examine the instructions in their entirety to ascertain the manner in which a jury of ordinary intelligent lay people would have understood them,'    and we review challenged portions of jury instructions in the context in which they were rendered. Hurteau, 810 A.2d at 225 (quoting State v. Krushnowski, 773 A.2d 243, 246 (R.I.2001)); see also State v. Gordon, 508 A.2d 1339, 1349 (R.I.1986). The defendant contends that the trial justices instructions were insufficient because, in his view, they failed to comport with our decision in Sunbeam Corp. [16] In light of what we have said in Part II of this opinion, it necessarily follows that the trial justice did not err by declining to give defendant's first proposed instruction verbatim. We agree with the trial justice that the first contested instruction in this case adequately stated the pertinent law and indeed did so in a language that we find more readily understandable than that contained in the proposed instruction. As for defendant's second objection to the instructions, he asserts that the trial justice misstated the law when he instructed the jury that it need only find that defendant was aware of the [restrictions] on his behavior by reason of the no contact order. (Emphasis added.) According to defendant, the prosecution was required to prove that the order was served upon the defendant or the defendant was otherwise provided a copy of the no contact order prior to the date in which he allegedly sent the birthday cards. We have carefully reviewed § 12-29-4, which deals with the issuance by courts of no-contact orders prohibiting a defendant who has been arrested for or charged with a crime of domestic violence from having contact with the victim. Such no-contact orders must be issued before such a defendant is released from custody, and they also may be issued upon the disposition of a case involving a domestic violence crime. Section 12-29-4(a)(3) contains the following requirements regarding the contents of no-contact orders: [T]he written [no-contact] order issued at the time of disposition shall contain the court's directive and shall bear the legend: `Violation of this order is a criminal offense under this section and will subject a violator to arrest.' A copy of the order shall be provided to the victim. The statute contains no requirement that such an order must be served upon the defendant or that the defendant must be provided with a copy of the order. We recognize, of course, that due process requires that a defendant be made aware of the order and of the restrictions upon his behavior directed by that order. [17] In this instance, the trial justices instruction adequately covered the law by informing the members of the jury that they must find that defendant was aware of the restriction on his behavior by reason of the no-contact order. (Emphasis added.) We perceive no error in this instruction.