THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 1 - CHAPTER 3
Go to Volume 1 Table of Contents - Go to Chapter 3 Table of Contents

3.1 Duty To Instruct On Elements Of The Charged Offense

    3.1.1 Duty To Instruct: General Principles
    3.1.2 Duty To Instruct On Elements Of Charge Even If Uncontested
    3.1.3 No Single Element Should Be Emphasized As More Or Less Important

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 1 - CHAPTER 3

PRACTICE NOTE: "At a minimum, it is the court's duty to ensure the jury is adequately instructed on the law governing all elements of the charged offense." (See e.g., People v. Marquez (9th Cir. 1992) 963 F2d 1311, 1315 [failure to orally instruct jury on elements of the offense is per se reversible error; giving jury documents describing elements of aggravated assault and weapons possession was insufficient]; People v. Croy (CA 1985) 41 C3d 1, 6 [221 CR 592] [reversible error to instruct jury on the elements of attempted murder by referring the jury to definitions of murder which incorporated principles of murder not requiring a finding of malice or specific intent to kill]; State v. Miller (WV 1990) 400 SE2d 611, 612 [trial court must instruct jury on all essential elements of offenses charged, and failure of trial court to instruct jury on essential elements deprives accused of his fundamental right to fair trial, and constitutes reversible error].) "[I]t is [the] court's duty to see to it that the jury are adequately informed on the law governing all elements of the case submitted to them to an extent necessary to enable them to perform their function in conformity with the applicable law. [Citation.]" (People v. Sanchez (CA 1950) 35 C2d 522, 528 [219 P2d 9]; see also McDowell v. Calderon (9th Cir. 1997) 130 F3d 833, 836.)

    "Whether requested or not...the jury is to be instructed on each and every essential element of the offense charged...." (Cissell, Federal Criminal Trials (Lexis, 5th ed. 1999) § 12-7(a), p. 322; see also Screws v. U.S. (1945) 325 US 91, 107 [65 SCt 1031; 89 LEd2d 1495]; Morissette v. U.S. (1952) 342 US 246, 275 [72 SCt 240; 96 LEd2d 288]; People v. Iverson (CA 1972) 26 CA3d 598, 604 [102 CR 913].)

    See also NCJIC 296.2.3.1 [Standard Of Prejudice On Appeal: Removal Of All Elements].

    See also NCJIC 296.2.3.2 [Standard Of Prejudice On Appeal: Removal Of A Single Element].

    See also NCJIC 300.4.2 [Failure To Instruct Or Directed Verdict On Element Of Charge].

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 1 - CHAPTER 3

PRACTICE NOTE: Although the fact that an element is uncontested may affect the standard of prejudice (see NCJIC  296.2.3.2 [Standard Of Prejudice On Appeal: Removal Of A Single Element]; see also NCJIC 300.4.1 [Failure To Instruct Or Directed Verdict On Element Of Charge]), it does not relieve the court of its duty to instruct on all elements. (See e.g., U.S. v. Smith (2nd Cir. 1991) 939 F2d 9, 11 [reversible error to only instruct on disputed elements].) "The constitution gives a criminal defendant the right to have a jury determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, his guilt of every element of the crime with which he is charged." (U.S. v. Gaudin (1995) 515 US 506, 515 [115 SCt 2310; 132 LEd2d 444].) "A State is free within extremely broad limits to decide upon the elements of a crime. But having decided upon them it may not convict without proof beyond a reasonable doubt that every element was present in the particular case, and therefore, without the jury's being instructed on each element." (Eaglin v. Welborn (7th Cir. 1995) 57 F3d 496, 500.)

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 1 - CHAPTER 3

PRACTICE NOTE: In U.S. v. Rawlings (CA DC 1996) 73 F3d 1145, 1146, the trial court instructed the jury that the first element "is the most important, although you must consider all three." (73 F3d at 1148.) The D.C. Circuit held that this instruction was plain error. Insofar as the instruction purported to establish a hierarchy among the offense elements, it was erroneous. The government was required to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation to Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 US 62, 68 [112 SCt 475; 116 LEd2d 385].] "No single element was more or less ‘important’ than any other or required more or less proof." (Rawlings,73 F3d at 1149.)

    See NCJIC  300.12.3 [Balance Among Instructions].