Opinion ID: 198474
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trespasser and Scope of the Warrant Defenses

Text: 17 Claiming that defendants based their trespasser and scope of the warrant defenses upon faulty legal theories, Drohan argues that the court should have precluded defendants from presenting these defenses. Because Drohan did not move for judgment as a matter of law, his arguments amount to a challenge of the court's decision to instruct the jury: Drohan contends that the court should never have presented these issues to the jury in its instructions and special interrogatory form. Drohan did not, however, object to the court's instructions or interrogatory form on these bases. Therefore, again, we review for plain error. 5 Drohan has not met his burden of showing that the alleged errors resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Indeed, Drohan has not even demonstrated that there were any clear or obvious errors. 6 Accordingly, we find no plain error in the presentation of these defenses to the jury.