discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Carpenter See, e.g., United States v. Sabetta, 373 F.3d 75, 80 (1st Cir.) (“A district court must use extreme caution in answering questions from juries so as not to usurp the jury’s fact finding role.”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 433 , 160 L.Ed.2d 338 (2004).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ahmer Shaikh v. Commonwealth “When they are, they do not need clarification.” Id.; see also Seaton v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 739, 755 , 595 S.E.2d 9, 17 (2004).4 In short, clarifications need not be given when, “taken in the context of the charge as a whole and the evidence in the case, the tenor of a word or phrase is reasonably clear.” United States v. Sabetta, 373 F.3d 75, 82 (1st Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 433 (2004).5 In this case, we cannot say the trial court left a vital issue unaddressed by using the model concert of action instruction.