Opinion ID: 2590362
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Jury instructions defining gross and lewdness

Text: As previously mentioned, whether a jury instruction was an accurate statement of the law is a legal question subject to de novo review. Nay v. State, 123 Nev. 326, 330, 167 P.3d 430, 433 (2007). But, when a criminal defendant fails to object to a district court's action, this court reviews the record for plain error only. Nelson v. State, 123 Nev. 534, 543, 170 P.3d 517, 524 (2007). To be plain, an error must be so unmistakable that it is apparent from a casual inspection of the record' and the defendant must demonstrate that the error affected his substantial rights. Id. (quoting Garner v. State, 116 Nev. 770, 783, 6 P.3d 1013, 1022 (2000), overruled on other grounds by Sharma v. State, 118 Nev. 648, 56 P.3d 868 (2002), and by Nika v. State, 124 Nev. ___, 198 P.3d 839 (2008)). In this case, Berry failed to object to the district court's jury instructions concerning his open and gross lewdness charges. Therefore, we review the adequacy of the district court's instructions for plain error. The district court instructed the jury on Berry's open and gross lewdness charges as follows: With reference to the crime of Open and Gross Lewdness, you are instructed that the word open is used to modify the term lewdness[.] As such, it includes acts which are committed in a private place, but which are nevertheless committed in an open as opposed to a secret manner. You are further instructed that it includes an act done in an open fashion clearly intending that the act be offensive to the victim. The term gross is defined as being indecent, obscene or vulgar. The term lewdness is defined as any act of a sexual nature which the actor knows is likely to be observed by the victim who would be affronted by the act. Berry concedes that the district court's instruction on the word open is in conformity with this court's decisions in Ranson, 99 Nev. 766, 670 P.2d 574, and Young, 109 Nev. 205, 849 P.2d 336. And, after considering the common law definition of open lewdness and the ordinary meanings of the terms gross and lewdness, we conclude that the trier of fact could have found that Berry's touching of Armstrong was sexual in nature, committed in an open fashion, and could have been observed by others who would have been offended. Accordingly, we conclude that Berry has failed to demonstrate that any error in the jury instruction affected his substantial rights.