Relevant Issue
What words in jury instructions should the court offer further definition for?
Facts
Mr. Frausto was charged with murder and found guilty at trial by a jury. The facts alleged that Mr. Frausto was upset with the victim over a dispute with Frausto’s friend’s girlfriend. Frausto asked the victim to meet at Frausto’s home, where Frausto then confronted him and eventually shot him several times.
At trial, the jury was given an instruction which stated, “It is no defense to the prosecution that the Defendant was a party to any duel, mutual combat, or other consensual altercation if during the course of the duel, combat, or altercation any dangerous weapon was used.” During their deliberations, the jury sent two notes to the judge, the first requesting general clarification on this instruction and the second specifically asking, “Does the statement ‘it is no defense to the prosecution’ mean no help for the prosecution?” However before the judge could provide clarification, the jury announced they had reached a verdict and found Frausto guilty. Frausto appealed his conviction, arguing in part that the court committed plain error by issuing the aforementioned instruction without definitions for “duel,” “mutual combat,” or “other consensual altercation.”
Rule
Normally a trial judge should not and is not required to volunteer definitions of terms of common usage for the jury.
Analysis
The Court relied on prior state case law to help analyze this issue. The Utah Supreme Court in State v. Couch has stated “[I]t is normally unnecessary and undesirable for a trial judge to volunteer definitions of terms of common usage for the jury.” Frausto claimed that the jury was confused by the instruction because it lacked definitions for “duels,” “mutual combat,” and “consensual altercations.” The questions asked by the jury, however, were related to whether the instruction affected either the prosecution or the defense. The jury gave no indication that their confusion stemmed from these specific terms being left undefined.
State v. Couch states further that “Ordinarily, non-technical words of ordinary meaning should not be elaborated upon in the instructions given by the court.” The Court also cited previous cases where an instruction had used these exact terms and was considered proper.
Holding
The Court found that because there was no error in not defining the terms of this instruction, Mr. Frausto’s plain error claim fails. The Court affirmed Frausto’s conviction.