| If requested by a defendant, a trial court is required to instruct a jury on any defense theories that are raised by the evidence. The defendant may raise those theories by his or her testimony alone. Also, the defendant is entitled to jury instructions on his or her affirmative defenses. The defendant's affirmative defenses do not need to be strong or to be uncontradicted in order for the defendant to be entitled to jury instructions on his or her affirmative defenses. The trial court is required to instruct the jury on the defendant's affirmative defenses, even if the trial court does not find that the affirmative defenses are credible or believable.
In deciding whether to instruct a jury on defense theories, a trial court must only determine whether there is some evidence to support the theories. It is within the province of the jury to determine whether the theories are credible or believable.
Even if a defendant does not request a specific instruction on his or her defense theories, a trial court may have a duty to instruct the jury on certain defensive matters, particularly if the matters are strategic to the defense. However, the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on defense theories, in the absence of a request by the defendant or an objection by the defendant, does not necessarily constitute error on the part of the trial court.
If a defendant requests a specific instruction on his or her defense theory, the defendant's instruction should provide an explanation of the law and should apply the law to the facts of the defendant's case. If the defendant's specific instruction fails to do so, a trial court may not be properly advised of the defense theory.
If a defendant merely denies an essential element of a prosecution's case, a trial court is not required to instruct a jury on a defense theory. The defendant's denial of the essential element does not constitute an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is a matter that negates an essential element of the prosecution's case. Examples of affirmative defenses include insanity, intoxication, self-defense, alibi, coercion, or duress.
If a defendant's theory of defense is part of an offense and is part of the prosecution's burden of proof, the defendant is not entitled to an instruction on his or her theory. If the prosecution is required to prove a certain element for the offense, the element is not a defense. For example, the fact that a victim of incest is not the defendant's family member or relative is not a defense because the prosecution is required to prove that the victim was the defendant's family member or relative in order to convict the defendant of incest.
A defendant is not limited as far as the number of instructions that he or she may receive regarding his or her defense theories. As long as the defense theories are raised by the evidence, the defendant is entitled to the instructions. Even if the defense theories are conflicting, the defendant is entitled to instructions on his or her defense theories. Copyright 2010 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. |