Opinion ID: 874801
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The jury instructions on arson were proper.

Text: Shackelford asserts that Jury Instructions 18 and 19 were ambiguous and misled and confused the jury, as evidenced in the jury's note to the judge, and the failure to correct this ambiguity resulted in a verdict that was not based upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of arson as charged in Count III of the Indictment. The State argues that Shackelford failed to establish jury confusion regarding the elements of first-degree arson and that, because Instruction 19 generally followed the elements of I.C. § 18-801 and 802, Shackelford has failed to establish error. Idaho Code § 18-801 offers definitions for the crime of arson, such as damage and dwelling. Idaho Code § 18-802 provides that [a]ny person who willfully and unlawfully, by fire or explosion, damages: (1) Any dwelling, whether occupied or not ... is guilty of arson in the first degree. Instruction 18 given by the district court reads: The Defendant, DALE CARTER SHACKELFORD, in COUNT III is charged with the crime of ARSON IN THE FIRST DEGREE alleged to have been committed as follows: COUNT III That the Defendant, DALE CARTER SHACKELFORD, on or about the 29th day of May, 1999, in the County of Latah, State of Idaho, did willfully and unlawfully, by fire or explosion, damage a dwelling, to-wit: a garage with upstairs living quarters located at 2168 Three Bear Road, by pouring a flammable liquid in the building and lighting a fire on both stories. To such charge the Defendant has pleaded not guilty. Instruction 19 reads: In order for the defendant to be guilty of Arson in the First Degree, the State must prove each of the following: 1. On or about the 29th day of May, 1999 2. in the county of Latah 3. state of Idaho 4. the defendant, Dale Carter Shackelford, willfully 5. by fire or explosion 6. damaged 7. a dwelling, whether occupied or not. If you find any of the above have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty. If each of the above has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you must decide the defendant is guilty of Arson in the First Degree. The instruction further provided definitions, and Instruction 20 advised the jurors of the distinction between first and second degree arson. Instructions 25 and 26 dealt with the conspiracy to commit arson charges. The district court received the following question from the jury: Regarding instruction number 25, 26 number 18, clarification: Must it be determined that the fire was lit on both stories before it can be determined arson? Or that the defendant can be found guilty of arson as in number 18? After conferencing with the parties, the court responded: Ladies and gentlemen, instructions numbered 18 and 25 state the charges of arson in the first degree and conspiracy to commit arson in the first degree, which are contained in the indictment. Instructions 19 and 26 contain the elements that are necessary for the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for the defendant to be found guilty of arson in the first degree and conspiracy to commit arson in the first degree. You will need to review the elements instructions, instruction numbers 19 and 26, to determine the answer to your questions. We find the jury instructions were not misleading and the court did not err in thus instructing the jury. Jury Instruction 19 stated the applicable law as found in I.C. § 18-802 and there was evidence at trial to support the instructions. Thus, the instructions were proper as they did not mislead the jury or prejudice Shackelford.