fact that a single instruction in West Virginia

2021Va. 691 , 226 S.E.2d 433 (1976), we held that, “[w]hen instructions are read as a whole and adequately advise the jury of all necessary elements for their consideration, the fact that a single instruction is incomplete or lacks a particular element will not constitute grounds for disturbing a jury verdict.” As noted above, petitioner did not object to the jury instructions. “[I]n West Virginia criminal cases[,] the sole bases for attacking an unobjected to jury charge are plain error and/or ineffective assistance of counsel.” State v. Miller, 194 W.

2007See Syl. pt. 6, State v. Milam, 159 W.Va. 691 , 226 S.E.2d 433 (1976) ("When instructions are read as a whole and adequately advise the jury of all necessary elements for their consideration, the fact that a single instruction is incomplete or lacks a particular element will not constitute grounds for disturbing a jury verdict.").

2007Even though the trial court's initial charge to the jury properly defined malice so as to include the requirement of showing an intentional killing, the reply to the jury's last inquiry was nonresponsive to the jury's question and was misleading. [7] It has been observed that "[w]hen the jury requests more instructions upon a particular phase of the case, the trial court is under a duty to instruct them in a plain, clear manner so as to enlighten rather than confuse them." Smith v. State, 265 Ga.App. 756 , 596 S.E.2d 13, 15 (2004).

2007Even though the trial court's initial charge to the jury properly defined malice so as to include the requirement of showing an intentional killing, the reply to the jury's last inquiry was nonresponsive to the jury's question and was misleading. [7] It has been observed that "[w]hen the jury requests more instructions upon a particular phase of the case, the trial court is under a duty to instruct them in a plain, clear manner so as to enlighten rather than confuse them." Smith v. State, 265 Ga.App. 756 , 596 S.E.2d 13, 15 (2004).

2000Accord State v. Vance, 168 W.Va. 666, 675 , 285 S.E.2d 437, 443 (1981).

2000Accord State v. Vance, 168 W.Va. 666, 675 , 285 S.E.2d 437, 443 (1981).

1995See State v. Schrader, 172 W.Va. 1 , 302 S.E.2d 70 (1982); State v. Riser, 170 W.Va. 473 , 294 S.E.2d 461 (1982); State v. Belcher, 161 W.Va. 660 , 245 S.E.2d 161 (1978).

1995See State v. Schrader, 172 W.Va. 1 , 302 S.E.2d 70 (1982); State v. Riser, 170 W.Va. 473 , 294 S.E.2d 461 (1982); State v. Belcher, 161 W.Va. 660 , 245 S.E.2d 161 (1978).

1995In Miller, we suggested that where a party does not make a clear, specific objection at trial to the charge that he challenges as erroneous, he forfeits his right to appeal unless the issue is so fundamental and prejudicial as to constitute "plain error." [14] In Syllabus Point 8 of State v. Walls, 170 W.Va. 419 , 294 S.E.2d 272 (1982), we stated: "`When instructions are read as a whole and adequately advise the jury of all necessary elements for their consideration, the fact that a single instruction is incomplete or lacks a particular element will not constitute grounds for disturbing a jury

1995In Miller, we suggested that where a party does not make a clear, specific objection at trial to the charge that he challenges as erroneous, he forfeits his right to appeal unless the issue is so fundamental and prejudicial as to constitute "plain error." [14] In Syllabus Point 8 of State v. Walls, 170 W.Va. 419 , 294 S.E.2d 272 (1982), we stated: "`When instructions are read as a whole and adequately advise the jury of all necessary elements for their consideration, the fact that a single instruction is incomplete or lacks a particular element will not constitute grounds for disturbing a jury

1995In Miller, we suggested that where a party does not make a clear, specific objection at trial to the charge that he challenges as erroneous, he forfeits his right to appeal unless the issue is so fundamental and prejudicial as to constitute "plain error." [14] In Syllabus Point 8 of State v. Walls, 170 W.Va. 419 , 294 S.E.2d 272 (1982), we stated: "`When instructions are read as a whole and adequately advise the jury of all necessary elements for their consideration, the fact that a single instruction is incomplete or lacks a particular element will not constitute grounds for disturbing a jury

1995In Miller, we suggested that where a party does not make a clear, specific objection at trial to the charge that he challenges as erroneous, he forfeits his right to appeal unless the issue is so fundamental and prejudicial as to constitute "plain error." [14] In Syllabus Point 8 of State v. Walls, 170 W.Va. 419 , 294 S.E.2d 272 (1982), we stated: "`When instructions are read as a whole and adequately advise the jury of all necessary elements for their consideration, the fact that a single instruction is incomplete or lacks a particular element will not constitute grounds for disturbing a jury

1991As we recognized in Adkins v. Whitten, 171 W.Va. 106, 109 , 297 S.E.2d 881, 884 (1982), ... it is incumbent on the court by way of instruction or charge to inform the jury as to the law that is applicable to the facts of the case_ We have consistently held that a trial court has a duty to give a proper instruction relating to an appropriate legal theory that is supported by the facts of the case.

1991As we recognized in Adkins v. Whitten, 171 W.Va. 106, 109 , 297 S.E.2d 881, 884 (1982), ... it is incumbent on the court by way of instruction or charge to inform the jury as to the law that is applicable to the facts of the case_ We have consistently held that a trial court has a duty to give a proper instruction relating to an appropriate legal theory that is supported by the facts of the case.