Jury Instructions

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

III. Jury instructions

In Chambers v. State, 337 Md. 44, 48 (1994), the Court of Appeals stated that jury instructions are designed to aid the jury in understanding the case, to provide guidance for the jury's deliberations, and to help the jury arrive at a correct verdict. Jury instructions direct the jury's attention to the legal principles that apply to the facts of the case. General v. State, 367 Md. 475, 485 (2002). In Carter v. State, 366 Md. 574, 587 (2001), the Court of Appeals recognized that jury instructions "guide deliberations of the jury and benefit the State and the public." In Robertson v. State, 112 Md. App. 366, 385 (1996), the Court of Special Appeals stated that jury instructions are "essential for safeguarding a defendant's right to a fair trial."

Jury instructions should be delivered in a manner that can be clearly understood by the jury. ABA Standards for Criminal Justice—Discovery & Trial by Jury 225-26, 233 (3d ed.) suggests that jury understanding is increased by providing jury instructions at the start of the trial and by furnishing jurors with a notebook that contain details about the trial.

A. Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions (MPJI-Cr)

Maryland has had the Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions (MPJI-Cr) since 1986. The jury instructions in MPJI-Cr are rebuttably presumed to be correct. In Maryland, with the exception of a "beyond a reasonable doubt" instruction, trial courts are not mandated to use the pattern jury instructions, although virtually all judges use them in virtually all situations.

In Ruffin v. State, 394 Md. 355, 372-73 (2006), the Court of Appeals held that the trial court must instruct the jury, using the MPJI-Cr, as to (1) presumption of innocence; and (2) proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In Green v. State, 127 Md. App. 758, 771 (1999), the Court of Special Appeals stated that trial judges should generally give jury instructions in the form presented in the MPJI-Cr, if applicable. The Court emphasized that these instructions have been crafted by a group of distinguished judges, lawyers, and professors who are the "Who's Who" of the Maryland bench and bar. See Minger v. State, 157 Md. App. 157, 161 n.1 (2004) ("Appellate courts in Maryland strongly favor the use of pattern jury instructions.").

B. Format of jury instructions

Jury instructions may be given orally or in writing. Md. Rules 4-325(c) and 326(b). ABA Standards at 234 recommends that the trial court (1) read the jury instructions; and (2) provide written jury instructions.

C. Court giving jury instructions

In Maryland, the trial court (1) may give jury instructions before the start of the trial; (2) may give jury instructions during the trial; (3) must give jury instructions at the close of all the evidence; and (4) may give supplemental jury instructions after the jury commences deliberations. Md. Rule 4-325(a). Any communication between the trial court and the jury after the close of the evidence is considered a jury instruction. Lansdowne v. State, 287 Md. 232, 243 (1980). The trial court's instructions are binding on the jury. MPJI-Cr 2:00.

D. Whether to give jury instructions

Trial courts almost always give jury instructions. In Elchin v. State, 47 Md. App. 358, 365 (1980), the Court of Special Appeals noted that whether to give jury instructions is discretionary unless requested by either the State or the defendant. In Carter, 366 Md. 574, the Court of Appeals held that trial courts are accorded broad discretion in determining the proper instruction, "although statutes, court rules, and case law may place limits on the judge's discretion." Id. at 584. The parties may, and if ordered by the trial court must, submit written requests for jury instructions. Md. Rule 4-325(b).

E. Scope of jury instructions

If requested by either the State or the defendant, the trial court is required to instruct on all legal issues that are generated by the evidence, provided the requested instruction (1) correctly states the law; (2) is generated by the evidence; and (3) is not fairly covered by another jury instruction that is given. Md. Rule 4-325(c); Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187, 197-98 (2008); see Ware v. State, 348 Md. 19, 58 (1997); Thompson v. State, 393 Md. 291, 302-03 (2006); Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 611 (1995); Christenson v. State, 274 Md. 133, 140-41 (1975); Berry v. State, 155 Md. App. 144, 156-57 (2004); Marr v. State, 134 Md. App. 152, 181 (2000); Holt v. State, 50 Md. App. 578, 580 (1982).

1. Proposed jury instruction must correctly state the law

In Martin v. State, 174 Md. App. 510, 522 (2007), the Court of Special Appeals stated that, generally, a party is entitled to have his theory of the case presented to the jury through a requested instruction, provided that theory is a correct explanation of the law. In Ellison v. State, 104 Md. App. 655, 660-63 (1995), the Court of Special Appeals held that, because the defendant's requested jury instruction correctly stated the "applicable law," the trial court's failure to give the instruction was reversible error.

If a proposed jury instruction is supported by the evidence, and not fairly covered in another instruction, the court is required to give a requested instruction if it correctly states the law. If the proposed instruction is a misstatement of the law or is poorly or inadequately worded, the court must still give a jury instruction, but must ensure that the law is stated correctly.

In Clark v. State, 80 Md. App. 405, 412 (1989), the Court of Special Appeals stated: "We hold that the court must instruct the jury on a matter which is a proper subject for instructions where a timely request has been made even though that request is not totally accurate and may contain some erroneous material." In Abbott v. State, 190 Md. App. 595, 643, 648 (2010), the Court of Special Appeals held that the court did not err in refusing to give the proposed jury instructions that were incomplete quotations from the Constitution and/or legally incorrect statements of law, but did err in failing to give proper instructions distinguishing between constitutionally protected speech and unprotected threats.

Similarly, in Riggins v. State, 155 Md. App. 181, 223 (2004), the Court of Special Appeals held the court did not err in refusing to give a proposed jury instruction that incorrectly stated that the defendant's statements must be independently corroborated before they may be considered. See Lapin v. State, 188 Md. App. 57, 69 (2009). In Armstead v. State, 195 Md. App. 599, 619 (2010), cert. denied, 418 Md. 191 (2011), the Court of Special Appeals held that the defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on conspiracy to commit second degree murder because there is no such crime in Maryland.

In Johnson v. State, 303 Md. 487 (1985), the Court of Appeals held that, before giving a proposed jury instruction, the trial court must ensure that the proposed instruction is a correct explanation of the law. If so, the instruction must be given. Id. at 512 (citing Smith v. State, 302 Md. 175, 179-80 (1985)); accord Lapin, 188 Md. App. at 69; Riggins v. State, 155 Md. App. 181, 223 (2004); Smiley v. State, 138 Md. App. 709, 714 (2001).

2. Proposed jury instruction not required, even if a correct statement of law, and generated by the evidence, if fairly covered in another instruction that is given

In Berry v. State, 155 Md. App. 144, 158 (2004), the Court of Special Appeals held that the trial court is not obligated to give a jury instruction on what is not a conspiracy, i.e., buyer-seller instruction, because the court gave an instruction on what conspiracy is. In Jackson v. State, 69 Md. App. 645 (1987), the Court of Special Appeals held that the requested eyewitness instruction, requiring careful scrutiny of eyewitness identifications, was not required because it was fairly covered by instructions regarding the burden of persuasion and the weighing of the evidence. Id. at 660-61 (citing Harris v. State, 11 Md. App. 658, 663 (1971)).

In England v. State, 21 Md. App. 412 (1974), aff'd, 274 Md. 264 (1975), the Court of Special Appeals held: "[A]lthough the requested prayer . . . was not given in its precise form, it was, nevertheless, substantially embraced within the court's instructions." See Cropper v. State, 233 Md. 384, 390 (1964); Brown v. State, 222 Md. 290, 296-97 (1960); Ayala v. State, 174 Md. App. 647, 679 (2007); Tirado v. State, 95 Md. App. 536, 560 (1993); Raley v. State, 32 Md. App. 515, 520 (1976); Harris, 11 Md. App. at 664; Graef v. State, 1 Md. App. 161, 171-72 (1967); Grandison v. State, 341 Md. 175, 211 (1995) (not needed because instruction fairly covered by the instructions actually given).

3. Proposed jury instruction must be supported by the evidence

In Marquardt v. State, 164 Md. App. 95, 131 (2005), the Court of Special Appeals held that, if there is "some evidence," that is sufficient to establish the right to a jury instruction, and the evidence need not be to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt, by clear and convincing, or even by a preponderance of the evidence. In Dykes v. State, 319 Md. 206, 216-17 (1990), the Court of Appeals stated "some evidence" means "some," as that word is understood in common, everyday usage. Moreover, the source of the evidence is immaterial and may emanate solely from the defendant. See State v. Martin, 329 Md. 351, 358-59 (1993).

In Bolden v. State, 44 Md. App. 643, 654 (1980), the Court of Special Appeals recognized that a requested instruction is "justifiably decline[d if] there is no evidence to support it. In Martin, 174 Md. App. 510, the Court of Special Appeals stated that the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction of his theory of the case if supported by the evidence." Id. at 522; Grandison, 341 Md. at 211 (not entitled to a jury instruction if not applicable under the facts); Johnson, 303 Md. at 512 (requested instruction must be warranted by the evidence); Smith, 302 Md. at 179-80.

...