Opinion ID: 1547232
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Supplemental Jury Charge

Text: Sivo next contends that the court erred in denying his request to supplement the court's perjury instruction with language from § 11-33-1(c) after the jury requested that the court read back the legal definition of perjury during deliberations. After the jury had deliberated a number of hours, a communication from the foreperson was received by the trial justice that included a request for the court to [r]eview the legal definition of perjury. The trial justice called the jury into the courtroom and had the stenographer reread the court's instruction defining perjury: Perjury is defined as the giving of a false oath in a judicial proceeding in regard to a material matter. A false oath is a willful and corrupt, sworn statement made with knowledge that it is false. The testimony assigned as perjury must be false and must be given willfully and corruptly and with full knowledge that the testimony was false for the purpose of having that false testimony believed by another.    That is, he must have believed that what he swore to was false and he must have had the intent to deceive.    Untrue testimony may be given by mistake or defect of memory without guilt of perjury or any other crime. Although Sivo did not object when the court initially gave the instruction, following the read-back, the defense objected to the court's omission of the last sentence of § 11-33-1(c), namely: It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to this subsection that the defendant, at the time he or she made each [irreconcilably contradictory] declaration, believed the declaration was true. In response to the objection, the prosecution argued that the case did not deal with irreconcilably contradictory declarations as the defense previously argued. The trial justice declined defendant's request to supplement the instruction. We deem this ruling to be correct. In reviewing a trial justice's charge to a jury, we have held that the instructions need only adequately cover [] the law. See State v. Hanes, 783 A.2d 920, 925 (R.I. 2001). We refrain from isolating single sentences in the instructions; instead, we examine the challenged portion in the context in which it was delivered to ascertain how a jury composed of ordinary, intelligent lay people would have understood the instructions. Id. We are satisfied that the trial justice's charge was more than adequate. The instruction as given presented no danger of prejudicing Sivo or of misleading the jury. The court clearly instructed that to return a verdict of guilty, the jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Sivo had knowledge that his statement was false at the time he testified at the bail hearing.