pattern jury instruction in North Carolina

2021Id. at 131 , 540 S.E.2d at 342 (citing State v. Cummings, 326 N.C. 298, 315 , 389 S.E.2d 66, 75 (1990); State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 644 , 340 S.E.2d 84, 95 (1986)). ¶ 12 The transcript indicates the following: (1) Defendant replied “Yes, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he was satisfied with using the pattern jury instruction for armed robbery; (2) Defendant replied “No, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he had “[a]ny additions, corrections, or deletions to the instructions”; and (3) Defendant declined to be heard when the trial court determined it would not include the victims’ na

2021Id. at 131 , 540 S.E.2d at 342 (citing State v. Cummings, 326 N.C. 298, 315 , 389 S.E.2d 66, 75 (1990); State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 644 , 340 S.E.2d 84, 95 (1986)). ¶ 12 The transcript indicates the following: (1) Defendant replied “Yes, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he was satisfied with using the pattern jury instruction for armed robbery; (2) Defendant replied “No, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he had “[a]ny additions, corrections, or deletions to the instructions”; and (3) Defendant declined to be heard when the trial court determined it would not include the victims’ na

2015After noting that the instruction delivered by the trial court had been taken from the relevant pattern jury instruction, we held that the instruction in question was inconsistent with the applicable law on the grounds that “actual knowledge of the presence of the narcotic on the part of a defendant is an essential ingredient of the offense of possession of narcotics.” Id. at *50 291, 293, 311 S.E.2d at 557-58 (citations omitted).

2015After noting that the instruction delivered by the trial court had been taken from the relevant pattern jury instruction, we held that the instruction in question was inconsistent with the applicable law on the grounds that “actual knowledge of the presence of the narcotic on the part of a defendant is an essential ingredient of the offense of possession of narcotics.” Id. at *50 291, 293, 311 S.E.2d at 557-58 (citations omitted).

2024For example, our Supreme Court in McNeill did not indicate there was any confusion as to what special instruction defense counsel was requesting: “During the charge conference, defense counsel requested that the trial court delete all of the listed examples of things from which premeditation and deliberation may be inferred.” 346 N.C. at 239 , 485 S.E.2d at 288 (citing the specific pattern jury instruction which defense counsel sought to modify).

2024For example, our Supreme Court in McNeill did not indicate there was any confusion as to what special instruction defense counsel was requesting: “During the charge conference, defense counsel requested that the trial court delete all of the listed examples of things from which premeditation and deliberation may be inferred.” 346 N.C. at 239 , 485 S.E.2d at 288 (citing the specific pattern jury instruction which defense counsel sought to modify).

2024While error is clearly invited when a defendant requests the instruction at issue, see State v. McPhail, 329 N.C. 636 , 643–44, 406 S.E.2d 591, 596 (1991) (finding invited error where the defendant specifically requested the trial court read the pattern jury instruction on confessions), this Court has held that defense counsel’s mere failure to object to proposed instruction does not constitute invited error.

2024While error is clearly invited when a defendant requests the instruction at issue, see State v. McPhail, 329 N.C. 636 , 643–44, 406 S.E.2d 591, 596 (1991) (finding invited error where the defendant specifically requested the trial court read the pattern jury instruction on confessions), this Court has held that defense counsel’s mere failure to object to proposed instruction does not constitute invited error.

2022We will uphold instructions when, “viewed in their entirety, [the instructions] present the law fairly and accurately to the jury.” State v. Roache, 358 N.C. 243, 304 , 595 S.E.2d 381, 420 (2004). ¶ 47 Footnote 6 of the pattern jury instruction for drug trafficking provides: “If the defendant contends that the defendant did not know the true identity of what the defendant possessed, add this language to the first sentence: ‘and the defendant knew that what the defendant possessed was (name substance).’” N.C.P.I.

2022We will uphold instructions when, “viewed in their entirety, [the instructions] present the law fairly and accurately to the jury.” State v. Roache, 358 N.C. 243, 304 , 595 S.E.2d 381, 420 (2004). ¶ 47 Footnote 6 of the pattern jury instruction for drug trafficking provides: “If the defendant contends that the defendant did not know the true identity of what the defendant possessed, add this language to the first sentence: ‘and the defendant knew that what the defendant possessed was (name substance).’” N.C.P.I.

2024Likewise, in Keel, this Court held that “[t]he State’s request [for a pattern jury instruction], approved by the defendant and agreed to by the trial court, satisfied the requirements of . . . the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure and preserved this question for review on appeal.” 333 N.C. at 56–57.

2016In Keel , a first-degree murder case, the State requested during the charge conference that the trial court give the pattern jury instruction for first-degree murder. 333 N.C. at 56 , 423 S.E.2d at 461 .

2024App. at 414, 869 S.E.2d at 344 (“A request for a culpable omission instruction would be a deviation from the pattern jury instruction, qualify as a special instruction, and would have needed to be submitted to the trial court in writing”); State v. Martin, 322 N.C. 229 , 236–37, 367 S.E.2d 618 , 622–23 (1988) (defendant failed to request special instruction in writing and therefore, the issue was not preserved on appeal, and the trial court 4 We note the mandatory language (“must”) is employed in both N.C.

2024App. at 414, 869 S.E.2d at 344 (“A request for a culpable omission instruction would be a deviation from the pattern jury instruction, qualify as a special instruction, and would have needed to be submitted to the trial court in writing”); State v. Martin, 322 N.C. 229 , 236–37, 367 S.E.2d 618 , 622–23 (1988) (defendant failed to request special instruction in writing and therefore, the issue was not preserved on appeal, and the trial court 4 We note the mandatory language (“must”) is employed in both N.C.

2023See State v. Allen, 322 N.C. 176 , 198–99 (1988) (“The trial court gave the pattern jury instruction in N.C.P.I. – Crim. 304.10 which informed the jury of the commitment hearing procedures in N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1321 and -1322, pursuant to article 5 of chapter 122C.

2011See also State v. Allen, 322 N.C. 176, 198-99 , 367 S.E.2d 626, 638 (1988) (“The trial court gave the pattern jury instruction in N.C.P.I. — Crim. 304.10 which informed the jury of the commitment hearing procedures in N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1321 and -1322, pursuant to article 5 of chapter 122C.

2023Defendant also requested an additional instruction paragraph that reads, in part, “a defendant who committed a violent homicide ‘will be presumed dangerous to others’ and has a ‘high hurdle’ and ‘difficult burden’ to overcome this presumption.” Defendant’s trial counsel admitted this was “a unique instruction,” and there were “no cases where [the requested paragraph has] been given.” Defendant requested the instruction be given because, inter alia, “it’s consistent with the law” and not including it could be “misleading to the jury.” “[U]pon request, a defendant who interposes a defense of ins

2016Under this Court’s holding in State v. Hammonds, when a defendant requests an instruction on the commitment procedure and proceedings that follow a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, and has presented evidence to support that verdict, the trial court must provide the appropriate instruction. 290 N.C. 1,15 , 224 S.E.2d 595, 604 (1976).

2022See State v. Cagle, 266 N.C.

2022See State v. Cagle, 266 N.C.

2022Analysis ¶ 24 “The jury charge is one of the most critical parts of a criminal trial.” State v. Walston, 367 N.C. 721, 730 (2014).

2022Analysis ¶ 24 “The jury charge is one of the most critical parts of a criminal trial.” State v. Walston, 367 N.C. 721, 730 (2014).

2021Id. at 131 , 540 S.E.2d at 342 (citing State v. Cummings, 326 N.C. 298, 315 , 389 S.E.2d 66, 75 (1990); State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 644 , 340 S.E.2d 84, 95 (1986)). ¶ 12 The transcript indicates the following: (1) Defendant replied “Yes, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he was satisfied with using the pattern jury instruction for armed robbery; (2) Defendant replied “No, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he had “[a]ny additions, corrections, or deletions to the instructions”; and (3) Defendant declined to be heard when the trial court determined it would not include the victims’ na

2021Id. at 131 , 540 S.E.2d at 342 (citing State v. Cummings, 326 N.C. 298, 315 , 389 S.E.2d 66, 75 (1990); State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 644 , 340 S.E.2d 84, 95 (1986)). ¶ 12 The transcript indicates the following: (1) Defendant replied “Yes, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he was satisfied with using the pattern jury instruction for armed robbery; (2) Defendant replied “No, sir[,]” when the trial court asked if he had “[a]ny additions, corrections, or deletions to the instructions”; and (3) Defendant declined to be heard when the trial court determined it would not include the victims’ na

2020App. at 569 , 688 S.E.2d at 769 (“The trial court tracked the language of the pattern jury instruction for statutory rape nearly word- for-word, and the instruction uses the term ‘victim’ ten times. . . .

2020App. at 569 , 688 S.E.2d at 769 (“The trial court tracked the language of the pattern jury instruction for statutory rape nearly word- for-word, and the instruction uses the term ‘victim’ ten times. . . .

2020Stat. § 15A-1340.16(d) limits what evidence the jury can consider in deciding whether an aggravating factor exists, the trial court was required to instruct the jury in accordance with the statute—as the pattern jury instruction specifies.” State v. Barrow, 216 N.C.

2020Stat. § 15A-1340.16(d) limits what evidence the jury can consider in deciding whether an aggravating factor exists, the trial court was required to instruct the jury in accordance with the statute—as the pattern jury instruction specifies.” State v. Barrow, 216 N.C.

2020In State v. Wilkinson, 344 N.C. 198 , 474 S.E.2d 375 (1996), “defendant requested that the trial court instruct the jury on depravity of mind, and the trial court did so in conjunction with the pattern jury instruction for the (e)(9) ‘especially heinous, atrocious or cruel’ aggravating circumstance.” Id. at 212 , 474 S.E.2d at 382 (citation omitted).

2020In State v. Wilkinson, 344 N.C. 198 , 474 S.E.2d 375 (1996), “defendant requested that the trial court instruct the jury on depravity of mind, and the trial court did so in conjunction with the pattern jury instruction for the (e)(9) ‘especially heinous, atrocious or cruel’ aggravating circumstance.” Id. at 212 , 474 S.E.2d at 382 (citation omitted).

2005Defendant moved the trial court to supplement the “specific intent to kill” instruction with the following language: “ [I]t is not enough that the defendant merely committed an intentional act that resulted in the victim’s death.” The trial court denied defendant’s request and instructed the jurors with the pattern jury instruction instead. “[I]f a ‘request be made for a [special] instruction, which is correct in itself and supported by evidence, the court must give the instruction at least in substance.’ ” State v. Lamb, 321 N.C. 633, 644 , 365 S.E.2d 600, 605-06 (1988) (quoting State v. Hook

2005Defendant moved the trial court to supplement the “specific intent to kill” instruction with the following language: “ [I]t is not enough that the defendant merely committed an intentional act that resulted in the victim’s death.” The trial court denied defendant’s request and instructed the jurors with the pattern jury instruction instead. “[I]f a ‘request be made for a [special] instruction, which is correct in itself and supported by evidence, the court must give the instruction at least in substance.’ ” State v. Lamb, 321 N.C. 633, 644 , 365 S.E.2d 600, 605-06 (1988) (quoting State v. Hook

2004See State v. Skipper, 337 N.C. 1, 57 , 446 S.E.2d 252, 283 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1134 , 130 L.

2004See State v. Skipper, 337 N.C. 1, 57 , 446 S.E.2d 252, 283 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1134 , 130 L.

2004See State v. Skipper, 337 N.C. 1, 57 , 446 S.E.2d 252, 283 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1134 , 130 L.

2004See State v. Skipper, 337 N.C. 1 , 57, 446 S.E.2d 252 , 283 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1134 , 130 L.

2013Our Supreme Court has held that the pattern jury instruction “has neither the force nor the effect of law[.]” State v. Warren, 348 N.C. 80, 119 , 499 S.E.2d 431, 453 (1998).

2013Our Supreme Court has held that the pattern jury instruction “has neither the force nor the effect of law[.]” State v. Warren, 348 N.C. 80, 119 , 499 S.E.2d 431, 453 (1998).

2007Presuming arguendo, Ashley’s and Mr. Hall’s statements could be admissible as substantive evidence under some theory, defendant has failed to show that the trial court’s pattern jury instruction consti *321 tutes “plain error.” Odom, 307 N.C. at 660 , 300 S.E.2d at 378 .

2007Presuming arguendo, Ashley’s and Mr. Hall’s statements could be admissible as substantive evidence under some theory, defendant has failed to show that the trial court’s pattern jury instruction consti *321 tutes “plain error.” Odom, 307 N.C. at 660 , 300 S.E.2d at 378 .

2006See, e.g., Duke, 360 N.C. at 136-37 , 623 S.E.2d 28 -29; State v. Syriani, 333 N.C. 350, 388-92 , 428 S.E.2d 118, 139-42 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 948 (1993).

2006See, e.g., Duke, 360 N.C. at 136-37 , 623 S.E.2d 28 -29; State v. Syriani, 333 N.C. 350, 388-92 , 428 S.E.2d 118, 139-42 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 948 (1993).

1996Defendant acknowledges that this Court has ruled to the contrary in State v. McDougall, 308 N.C. 1 , 301 S.E.2d 308 , cert. denied, 464 U.S. 865 , 78 L.

1996Defendant acknowledges that this Court has ruled to the contrary in State v. McDougall, 308 N.C. 1 , 301 S.E.2d 308 , cert. denied, 464 U.S. 865 , 78 L.

1996Defendant acknowledges that this Court has ruled to the contrary in State v. McDougall, 308 N.C. 1 , 301 S.E.2d 308 , cert. denied, 464 U.S. 865 , 78 L.

1996Defendant acknowledges that this Court has ruled to the contrary in State v. McDougall, 308 N.C. 1 , 301 S.E.2d 308 , cert. denied, 464 U.S. 865 , 78 L.