Opinion ID: 1851892
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant next claims the trial court erred in giving instruction 21 Because the instruction fails to define the terms `lawful authority' and `lawful command.'

Text: Defendant's brief and argument is difficult to follow because it relates to instruction 21 as set out in defendant's abstract of record. Somehow the fourth paragraph of the instruction was not included. In that paragraph the trial court told the jury the meaning of lawful authority and command as applied to the record evidence. Defendant failed to request an additional or more explicit instruction. The State argues a party desiring an additional or more specific instruction should timely request it and defendant's failure to make known to the trial court such a desire deprives him of a basis for a successful appeal. The State relies on our holding in State v. Hackett, Iowa, 197 N.W.2d 569. In State v. Badgett, Iowa, 167 N.W.2d 680, 688, we say: We have held many times from our earlier decisions to our recent ones that a party desiring an additional or more explicit instruction should timely request it. A defendant's failure to present an instruction on such a matter or make known to the court his wish to so instruct deprives him of a basis for successful appeal in this court for failure to do so. (Citations). (Emphasis added). We find defendant's objections to instruction 21 sufficiently made known to the court a desire to have lawful authority and lawful command defined. Those words, which themselves have a common and generally accepted meaning, were sufficiently further defined and limited in the fourth paragraph of instruction 21 as applied to the factual circumstances. Words of ordinary usage and which are generally understood need not be instructionally defined. State v. Graham, Iowa, 203 N.W.2d 600, 603; Henneman v. McCalla, 260 Iowa 60, 77, 148 N.W.2d 447, 457; State v. Wallace, 259 Iowa 765, 773, 145 N.W.2d 615, 620. We do not reach or decide the State's contention defendant was not prejudiced as claimed in his second assigned error because defendant was not entitled to the benefit of the self-defense instructions. III. Defendant's third assigned error is that his demurrer should have been sustained. He concedes in his brief and also in oral argument that we have repeatedly held the use of a county attorney's information rather than grand jury indictment establishes no ground for reversible error. We have frequently so held. See Furgison v. State, Iowa, 217 N.W.2d 613, 616; State v. Masters, Iowa, 196 N.W.2d 548, 550 and State v. Abodeely, Iowa, 179 N.W.2d 347, 355 where we say: On the basis of both reason and authority we again hold the Iowa county attorney's information procedure valid. We decline to overrule our prior holdings. We find no reversible error in this case. Affirmed.