Court Opinion

ID: 9567718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:57:06.576724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:20:32.288670
License: Public Domain

BRYNER, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. In my view, Gilbreath was entitled to have the jury’s question answered with an accurate statement of applicable law. There was ample evidence presented to allow reasonable jurors to conclude that Gilbreath had been specifically directed to drive his car to the side of the road by a police officer who was acting in the course and scope of his duties. Consequently, the jury should have been instructed that Gil-breath could not be convicted for driving pursuant to a direct and lawful order by a police officer.
I fail to see how the failure of Gil-breath’s counsel to anticipate an obviously *226unexpected jury question could amount to a waiver or forfeiture of Gilbreath’s right to a verdict based upon a correct statement of applicable law. It seems to me that the position taken by the majority of the court is tantamount to a holding that the prosecution has the burden of proving a defendant’s guilt on only those elements that the defendant affirmatively disputes at trial,