Court Opinion

ID: 9675746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:04:30.956157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:38.364072
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, Chief Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the result but write separately to emphasize that the district court followed the pattern jury instruction for third-degree assault. It appears that the anomaly in the pattern jury instruction for third-degree assault dates back to changes made in 1990. Prior to that time, the instruction incorporated the meaning of assault into the first element of the offense.1 The 1990 version of the instruction removed the explanation.2 The 1999 version added that the state did not have to prove intent to cause the specified degree of harm.3 And by comment, the 1999 jury *664instruction guide also added that “[i]n cases in which a defendant is charged with a degree of an assault, the court may wish to incorporate” the definition of assault “directly into the first element of the appropriate elements instruction as a further definition of that element.” 10 Minn. Dist. Judges Ass’n, Minnesota Practice — Jury Instruction Guides, Criminal, CRIMJIG 13.01 cmt. (4th ed.1999) (emphasis supplied).
I do tend to agree that the third-degree assault instruction should explain the assault element, i.e., that defendant assaulted complainant and that this means the defendant intentionally inflicted bodily harm on complainant. While I doubt that the omitted instruction might have prompted a reasonable jury to reach a different result, I have no problem with a remand for an adjudication and sentence on the terroristic threat conviction unless the state chooses to retry Vance on the third-degree assault charge.

. The pre-1990 jury instruction for third-degree assault provided:
The elements of assault in the third degree are:
First, defendant assaulted-This means that defendant intentionally inflicted bodily harm on_
Second, defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm on_Substantial bodily harm means bodily harm which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily member.
Third, defendant’s act took place on (or about)_in4_County.
If you find that each of these three elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant is guilty of assault in the third degree. If you find that any of these elements has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant is not guilty of assault in the third degree.
10 Minn. Dist. Judges Ass’n, Minnesota Practice — Jury Instruction Guides, Criminal, CRIMJIG 13.08 (2d ed.1985).

. The 1990 jury instruction for third-degree assault provided:
The elements of assault in the third degree are:
First, defendant assaulted_
Second, defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm on_Substantial bodily harm means bodily harm which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily member.
Third, defendant’s act took place on (or about)_in_County.
If you find that each of these, three elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant is guilty of assault in the third degree. If you find that any of these elements has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant is not guilty of assault in the third degree.
10 Minn. Dist. Judges Ass'n, Minnesota Practice — Jury Instruction Guides, Criminal, CRIMJIG 13.08 (3d ed.1990).

.The 1999 jury instruction for third-degree assault provided:
The elements of assault in the third degree are:
First, the defendant assaulted_
Second, the defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm on_"Substantial bodily harm” means bodily harm that involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or causes a fracture of any bodily member. It is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant intended to inflict substantial bodily harm, but only that the defendant intended to commit the assault.
Third, the defendant’s act took place on (or about)_in_County.
If you find that each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty. If you find that any element has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is not guilty.
10 Minn. Dist. Judges Ass'n, Minnesota Practice — Jury Instruction Guides, Criminal, CRIMJIG 13.16 (4th ed.1999).