State v. Trombley - 174 Vt. 459, 807 A.2d 400 (2002)

Rule:

In reviewing jury instructions, the relevant inquiry is whether the instructions as a whole were misleading or inadequate to aid the jury's deliberations. If the charge as a whole breathes the true spirit and doctrine of the law, and there is no fair ground to say that the jury has been misled by it, it ought to stand. An appellate court will assign error only where the instructions undermine its confidence in the verdict.

Facts:

George Demarais and defendant Matthew Trombley had been involved in a fight. Demarais testified that he had been sitting at the bar when defendant attacked him. Defendant was pulled off Demarais, and the latter left the bar. When defendant noticed that his hand had been cut, he went after Demarais. Demarais testified that defendant punched him several times before Demarais fell to the ground and started to lose consciousness. In an effort to defend himself, he pulled out a small knife and blindly slashed defendant. Defendant, however, claimed that he punched the Demarais repeatedly in an effort to get Demarais to stop stabbing him. Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault. On appeal, defendant claimed several errors in the court’s jury instructions. Defendant contended that the court improperly instructed the jury to consider whether defendant acted either "purposely" or "knowingly" when defendant was charged with only "purposely" inflicting serious bodily harm. The defendant further contended that the court failed to instruct the jury that it should consider evidence of defendant's fear and emotions in deciding whether defendant acted purposely. The defendant alleged that the court's instructions on self-defense were so misleading that the jury rejected defendant's claim of self-defense.

Issue:

Should the Court overturn defendant’s convictions based on the alleged errors in the trial court’s jury instructions?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court noted that the trial court erred in instructing the jury to consider whether defendant acted either purposely or knowingly when defendant was charged with only purposely inflicting serious bodily harm; however, the error was harmless. According to the Court, the instruction did not harm defendant's self-defense claim, as his mens rea was not properly considered along with his justification for defending himself. The Court held that the trial court properly refused to give a diminished capacity charge, because there was insufficient evidence to justify the charge. Defendant's testimony indicated that he was acting with full mental capabilities during the second altercation. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.