Jury Instructions – Generally

Questions involving the propriety of jury instructions are mixed questions of law and fact, therefore, our standard of review is de novo with no presumption of correctness. See State v. Cole-Pugh, 588 S.W.3d 254, 259-260 (Tenn. 2019). It is well-settled in Tennessee that a “defendant has a right to a correct and complete charge of the law, so that each issue of fact raised by the evidence will be submitted to the jury on proper instructions.” State v. Garrison, 40 S.W.3d 426, 432 (Tenn. 2000). An instruction on a defense must be given if fairly raised by the proof regardless of whether the defense relies on the theory or requests that an instruction be given as to that theory. See Cole-Pugh, 588 S.W.3d at 260-264. In determining whether a defense instruction is raised by the evidence, the trial court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant to determine whether there is evidence that reasonable minds could accept as to that defense. See State v. Sims, 45 S.W.3d 1, 9 (citing Johnson v. State, 351 S.W.2d 558, 559 (Tenn. 1975)).

Questions regarding the propriety of jury instructions are reviewed de novo, but only if the issue is properly preserved. State v. Perrier, 536 S.W.3d 388, 403 (Tenn. 2017); Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e).

Because questions regarding the propriety of jury instructions are mixed questions of law and fact, our standard of review here is de novo, with no presumption of correctness. State v. Rush, 50 S.W.3d 424, 427 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Smiley, 38 S.W.3d 521, 524 (Tenn. 2001).

“Whether jury instructions are sufficient is a question of law appellate courts review de novo with no presumption of correctness.” State v. Clark, 452 S.W.3d 268, 295 (Tenn. 2004).

Defendants have a constitutional right to a “correct and complete charge of the law.” State v. Hollis, 342 S.W.3d 43, 50 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011); Cauthern v. State, S.W.3d 571, 600 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). Consequently, trial courts are required, without request, “to give ‘a complete charge of the law applicable to the facts of the case.”’ Hollis, 342 S.W.3d at 50 (quoting State v. Davenport, 973 S.W.2d 283, 287 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998)). “A trial court’s refusal to grant a special instruction is error only when the general charge does not fully and fairly state the applicable law.” State v. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121, 129 (Tenn. 2013) (citations omitted). On appeal, we review “‘the charge as a whole in determining whether prejudicial error has been committed.’” Hollis, 342 S.W.3d at 50 (quoting In re Estate of Elam, 738 S.W.2d 169, 174 (Tenn. 1987)). “A charge is prejudicially erroneous “‘if it fails to fairly submit the legal issues or if it misleads the jury as to the applicable law.’” Id. (quoting State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 101; State v. Hodges, 944 S.W.2d 346, 352 (Tenn. 1997). An error or misstatement in jury instructions is subject to constitutional harmless error analysis. State v. Faulkner, 154 S.W.3d 48, 60 (Tenn. 2005).

A defendant has a right to “a correct and complete charge of the law governing the issues raised by the evidence presented at trial.” State v. Brooks, 277 S.W.3d 407, 412 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008) (citing State v. Forbes, 918 S.W.2d 431, 447 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)). The trial court is tasked with providing this “complete charge” to the jury. State v. James, 315 S.W.3d 440, 446 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting State v. Harbison, 704 S.W.2d 314, 319 (Tenn. 1986)). The jury instructions must correctly, fully, and fairly set forth the applicable law. Brooks, 277 S.W.3d at 412. The instructions must be reviewed in their entirety rather than examining individual phrases in isolation. Id.

A special jury instruction is given “to supply an omission or correct a mistake made in the general charge, to present a material question not treated in the general charge, or to limit, extend, eliminate, or more accurately define a proposition already submitted to the jury.” State v. Adams, 405 S.W.3d 641, 661 (Tenn. 2013) (quoting State v. Cozart, 54 S.W.3d 242, 245 (Tenn. 2001), overruled on other grounds by White, 362 S.W.3d at 559). “When the general charge fully and fairly sets forth the applicable law, a special instruction is unnecessary.” State v. Fayne, 451 S.W.3d 362, 373 (Tenn. 2014) (citing State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265, 280 (Tenn. 2009)). As such, a trial court’s refusal to deliver a special instruction is error only if the charged instruction “fails to fairly submit the legal issues or if it misleads the jury as to the applicable law.” Id. (quoting State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 101 (Tenn. 1998)). Moreover, pattern jury instructions are “merely suggestions,” and trial courts are not required to use them when instructing a jury. State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 74 (Tenn. 1992) (citations omitted). Because challenges to a trial court’s jury instructions are a mixed question of law and fact, our review is de novo with no presumption of correctness. Fayne, 451 S.W.3d at 373.

The legal accuracy of the trial court’s instructions is a question of law subject to de novo review. See Troup v. Fischer Steel Corp., 236 S.W.3d 143, 149 (Tenn. 2007). The propriety of a given instruction is a mixed question of law and fact to be reviewed de novo with a presumption of correctness. Carpenter v. State, 126 S.W.3d 879, 892 (Tenn. 2004); State v. Smiley, 38 S.W.3d 521, 524 (Tenn. 2001).

State v. Murphy, No. M2022-00396-CCA-R3-CD, p. 10-11 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 21, 2023). 

Trial courts have a duty to give a “‘complete charge of the law applicable to the facts of a case.’” State v. James, 315 S.W.3d 440, 446 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting State v. Harbison, 704 S.W.2d 314, 319 (Tenn. 1986)). When reviewing challenged jury instructions, we must look at the entire jury charge as a whole in determining whether prejudicial error has been committed. In re Estate of Elam, 738 S.W.2d 169, 174 (Tenn. 1987); see State v. Forbes, 918 S.W.2d 431, 447 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (citing State v. Phipps, 883 S.W.2d 138, 142 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)). An erroneous or inaccurate jury instruction, rather than an omitted instruction, may be raised for the first time in a motion for new trial. State v. Lynn, 924 S.W.2d 892, 898-99 (Tenn. 1996) (citing Tenn. R. Crim. P. 30(b)).

Because questions regarding the sufficiency of jury instructions are a question of law, the standard of review is de novo with no presumption of correctness. State v. Clark, 452 S.W.3d 268, 295 (Tenn. 2014). An instruction is “‘prejudicially erroneous only if the jury charge, when read as a whole, fails to fairly submit the legal issues or misleads the jury as to the applicable law.’” State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850, 864-65 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting State v. Faulkner, 154 S.W.3d 48, 58 (Tenn. 2005)); see State v. Hodges, 944 S.W.2d 346, 352 (Tenn. 1997) (citing Forbes, 918 S.W.2d at 447; Graham v. State, 547 S.W.2d 531, 544 (Tenn. 1977)). Even if a trial court errs in instructing the jury, the error may be harmless. State v. Williams, 977 S.W.2d 101, 104-05 (Tenn. 1998). An instructional error is harmless unless, when “considering the whole record,” the error “more probably than not affected the judgment or would result in prejudice to the judicial process.” Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b); see State v. Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d 361, 372 (Tenn. 2008).

A trial court has the authority to respond to jury questions with supplemental instructions. State v. Bowers, 77 S.W.3d 776, 790 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (citing Forbes, 918 S.W.2d at 451). The “appropriate course of action” for the trial court in responding to a question from the jury is “to bring the jurors back into open court, read the supplemental instruction . . . along with a supplemental instruction emphasizing that the jury should not place undue emphasis on the supplemental instructions, and then allow the jury to resume its deliberations.” Id. at 791. The failure to follow the proper procedure is subject to harmless error analysis, and reversal is not required if the defendant has not been prejudiced. Id.; State v. Tune, 872 S.W.2d 922, 929 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993).

State v. Perkins, No. W2022-01111-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 28, 2023). 

A defendant has a right to complete and accurate jury instruction. State v. Cole- Pugh, 588 S.W.3d 254, 259-60 (Tenn. 2019). The duty to instruct the jury falls on the trial court. Id. at 260. A reviewing court should consider the jury instructions in their entirety. State v. Leach, 148 S.W.3d 42, 58 (Tenn. 2004). A jury instruction is considered prejudicially erroneous if it “fails to submit the legal issues or misleads the jury as to the applicable law.” State v. Faulkner, 154 S.W.3d 48, 58 (Tenn. 2005). As to the latter point, a jury instruction should contain no statement which is inaccurate, inapplicable, or which might tend to confuse the jury. State v. Hatcher, 310 S.W.3d 788, 812 (Tenn. 2010). The jury is presumed to follow the trial court’s instructions. State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90, 137 (Tenn. 2008). An inquiry into the propriety of a jury instruction is a mixed question of fact and law which this court reviews de novo with no presumption of correctness. State v. Perrier, 536 S.W.3d 388, 396 (Tenn. 2017).

State v. Odom, No. M2022-00756-CCA-R3-CD, p. 10 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 26, 2023). 

A party must contemporaneously object to incomplete jury instructions to preserve the issue for plenary appellate review. State v. Faulkner, 154 S.W.3d 48, 58 (Tenn. 2005). And a party challenging erroneous or inaccurate jury instructions must at least raise the issue in the motion for new trial. Id.; see also Tenn. R. Crim. P. 30(b); Tenn. R. App. P. (3)(e). Otherwise, this Court may only review the issue for plain error. See Faulkner, 154 S.W.3d at 58; Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a), (b).

Rule 30(c) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, “[E]very word of the judge’s instructions shall be reduced to writing before being given to the jury.” Tenn. R. Crim. P. 30(c). However, failure to follow this rule, although error, is not reversible unless it “more probably than not affected the judgment.” Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b); State v. Gorman, 628 S.W.2d 739, 740 (Tenn. 1982). It is not error for part of the charge to be handwritten while the remainder is typewritten unless it falls to the level of the writing described in Pedigo v. State, 236 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tenn. 1951), of “contain[ing] incompetent and irrelevant matter, illegible interlineation and meaningless annotations [that] might as well have been written in a foreign language and could serve no purpose except to confuse the jury.” State v. Tyson, 603 S.W.2d 748, 754 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980). In Pedigo, the supreme court noted that the jury’s verdict also indicated that the jury was confused and not clearly instructed. 236 S.W.2d at 90. The form of the instructions is not as important as their content. See State v. Cravens, 764 S.W.2d 754 (Tenn. 1989) (holding that the reversal in State v. Martin, 702 S.W.2d 560 (Tenn. 1985), was for the content of the instructions, not the form, and that the form of the instructions in that case, although not as clear as directed by Martin, did not warrant reversal).

Whether jury instructions are sufficient is a question of law, which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. State v. Clark, S.W.3d 268, 295 (Tenn. 2014). “It is not error to refuse a special request where the charge as given fully and fairly states the applicable law.” Edwards v. State, 540 S.W.2d 641, 649 (Tenn. 1976).

Similarly, the sufficiency of a trial court’s jury instructions “is a question of law appellate courts review de novo with no presumption of correctness.” State v. Clark, 452 S.W.3d 268, 295 (Tenn. 2014).

When reviewing jury instructions on appeal to determine whether they are erroneous, this Court must “review the charge in its entirety and read it as a whole.” State v. Hodges, 944 S.W.2d 346, 352 (Tenn. 1997). A jury instruction is considered “prejudicially erroneous” only “if it fails to fairly submit the legal issues or if it misleads the jury as to the applicable law.” Id. An erroneous jury instruction may deprive the defendant of his constitutional right to a jury trial. Garrison, 40 S.W.3d at 433-34. Because the propriety of jury instructions is a mixed question of law and fact, the standard of review is de novo with no presumption of correctness. Carpenter v. State, 126 S.W.3d 879, 892 (Tenn. 2004); State v. Smiley, 38 S.W.3d 521, 524 (Tenn. 2001).

In determining this issue, we recognize that a criminal defendant has the “right to a correct and complete charge of the law.” State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265, 280 (Tenn. 2009) (citing State v. Garrison, 40 S.W.3d 426, 432 (Tenn. 2000)). Because the defendant has a constitutional right to a correct and complete charge of the law, each issue of fact raised by the evidence should be submitted to the jury with proper instructions. State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 390 (Tenn. 2011). Whether a jury instruction is required by the facts of a particular case is a mixed question of law and fact, and the question of whether a jury instruction should have been given is reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. State v. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121, 128 (Tenn. 2013).

A jury charge should contain no statement which is inaccurate, inapplicable, or which might tend to confuse the jury. State v. Hatcher, 310 S.W.3d 788, 812 (Tenn. 2010). A trial court must instruct the jury on a lesser-included offense if it determines that “any evidence as to a lesser-included offense exists that reasonable minds could accept and that the evidence, viewed liberally in the light most favorable to the lesser-included offense, is legally sufficient to support a conviction[.]” Howard, 504 S.W.3d at 268 (citing State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 469 (Tenn. 1999)). A trial court’s failure to instruct the jury as to a lesser-included offense is a non-structural constitutional error, and the State has the burden of showing that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Brown, 311 S.W.3d 422, 434 (Tenn. 2010); see State v. Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d 361, 371 (Tenn. 2008) (holding that “[t]he test used to determine whether a non-structural constitutional error is harmless is whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). When determining whether an error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, this court “should conduct a thorough examination of the record, including the evidence presented at trial, the defendant’s theory of defense, and the verdict returned by the jury.” State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d 181, 191 (Tenn. 2002).

Whether a jury instruction is required by the facts of a particular case is a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121, 128 (Tenn. 2013). The question of whether a jury instruction should have been given is therefore reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. Id.

A defendant is entitled “to a correct and complete charge of the law, so that each issue of fact raised by the evidence will be submitted to the jury on proper instructions.” State v. Garrison, 40 S.W.3d 426, 432 (Tenn. 2000). “Trial courts have the duty, without request, to give proper jury instructions as to the law governing the issues raised by the nature of the proceeding and the evidence introduced at trial.” State v. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121, 129 (Tenn. 2013). But jury instructions must be viewed in their entirety, and phrases may not be examined in isolation. State v. Rimmer, 250 S.W.3d 12, 31 (Tenn. 2008). “An instruction should be considered prejudicially erroneous only if the jury charge, when read as a whole, fails to fairly submit the legal issues or misleads the jury as to the applicable law.” State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850, 864-65 (Tenn. 2008) (quotation and citation omitted).

Issues relating to the propriety of jury instructions involve mixed questions of law and fact, which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. Id. (citing State v. Rush, 50 S.W.3d 424, 427 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Smiley, 38 S.W.3d 521, 524 (Tenn. 2001)). “The omission of an essential element from the jury charge is subject to harmless error analysis.” State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850, 864 (Tenn. 2010) (citing State v. Garrison, 40 S.W.3d 426, 434 (Tenn. 2000)). “‘An instruction should be considered prejudicially erroneous only if the jury charge, when read as a whole, fails to fairly submit the legal issues or misleads the jury as to the applicable law.’” Id. (quoting State v. Faulkner, 154 S.W.3d 48, 58 (Tenn. 2005)).

Whether jury instructions are sufficient is a question of law, which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. State v. Clark, 452 S.W.3d 268, 295 (Tenn. 2014). “[T]he trial court has a duty to provide a ‘complete charge of the law applicable to the facts of the case.’” State v. James, 315 S.W.3d 440, 446 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting State v. Harbison, 704 S.W.2d 314, 319 (Tenn. 1986)). “It is not error to refuse a special request where the charge as given fully and fairly states the applicable law.” Edwards v. State, 540 S.W.2d 641, 649 (Tenn. 1976); see State v. Gilley, 297 S.W.3d 739, 766 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008) (reiterating that “[w]hen a trial court’s charge to the jury is complete, it need not give additional special instructions requested by the defendant”). Only if the jury charge, when read as a whole, “fails to fairly submit the legal issues or misleads the jury as to the applicable law” is an instruction considered prejudicially erroneous. State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850, 864-65 (Tenn. 2008).

State v. Hollon, No. M2022-00815-CCA-R9-CD, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 14, 2023). 

“The propriety of a jury instruction is a mixed question of law and fact, reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness.” Id.

In reviewing the trial court’s proposed instruction, this Court must carefully examine the statute defining the offense to determine the correct mental state to be applied to the elements. Because this issue requires a legal interpretation of a statute, the issue is one of law that this Court likewise reviews de novo with no presumption of correctness. State v. Jones, 589 S.W.3d 747, 756 (Tenn. 2019).

Because questions regarding the propriety of jury instructions are a mixed question of law and fact, this court reviews those questions de novo with no presumption of correctness. State v. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121, 128 (Tenn. 2013) (citing State v. Rogers, 188 S.W.3d 593, 628-29 (Tenn. 2006); State v. George R. Thacker, No. E2011-02401-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 4078440, at *8 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 18, 2012)). When reviewing challenged jury instructions, this court must “view the instruction in the context of the charge as a whole” in determining whether prejudicial error has been committed requiring reversal. State v. Clark, 452 S.W.3d 268, 295 (Tenn. 2014) (citing Rimmer, 250 S.W.3d at 31; State v. Hodges, 944 S.W.2d 346, 352 (Tenn. 1997)). When “the instruction alone infected the entire trial and resulted in a conviction that violates due process,” see James, 315 S.W.3d at 446, or “when the judge’s charge, taken as a whole, failed to fairly submit the legal issues or misled the jury as to the applicable law,” see State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850, 864-65 (Tenn. 2010), the jury instruction is prejudicially erroneous. Clark, 452 S.W.3d at 295.

…