Opinion ID: 1120918
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Jury Instruction for Aggravated Assault and Battery

Text: With his final issue, Appellant asserts that the district court committed reversible error under the plain error doctrine when it instructed the jury on the elements of aggravated assault and battery. Specifically, Appellant contends that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the definition of a threat. The district court has the duty to instruct the jury on the general principles applicable to the case. Sanchez v. State, 751 P.2d 1300 (Wyo. 1988). The court is not required to define a term unless it has a definite, technical meaning under the law different from the ordinary meaning and which the jury might therefore not understand. Durham v. State, 422 P.2d 691, 692 (Wyo. 1967). The term threat is not such a term, and the instructions provided by the court adequately informed the jury of the elements of aggravated assault and battery. Plain error does not exist. Affirmed.