Court Opinion

ID: 9860613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:27:28.782571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:11.552155
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, Justice,
dissenting.
A mandatory jury instruction is one which purports to set out all of the elements essential to an issue and then directs the jury to find for a particular party. Perry v. Goss (1970), 253 Ind. 603, 255 N.E.2d 923; Cato Enterprises, Inc. v. Fine (1971), 149 Ind.App. 163, 271 N.E.2d 146. An ambiguity, inaccuracy, or incompleteness of a mandatory instruction may not be cured by reference to other instructions. Shelby Nat’l Bank v. Miller (1971), 147 Ind.App. 203, 259 N.E.2d 450; Coffey v. Wininger (1973), 156 Ind.App. 233, 296 N.E.2d 154; Estate of Hunt v. Board of Comm’rs of Henry County (1988), Ind.App., 526 N.E.2d 1230.
In the present case, final instruction No. 9 purported to set out all of the essential elements and then directed the jury to find guilt upon satisfactory proof of these elements. It is therefore a mandatory instruction. Because it fails to include the necessary elements of defendant’s self-defense claim, it was erroneously given. To the extent that this conclusion is inconsistent with Mitchem v. State (1987), Ind., 503 N.E.2d 889, the latter should be clarified, limited, or overruled.