The Vermont Model Criminal Jury Instructions have been developed by a committee that began meeting in 2001.\u00a0 The original members were District Court Judge Paul F. Hudson and Attorneys Dan M. Davis, Matthew I. Levine, Kathleen M. Moore, and Thomas A. Zonay, with Judson D. Burnham serving as the reporter.\u00a0 The current members of the committee are:<\/p>\n
Michael Csere serves as committee reporter, and Judson D. Burnham continued to serve as reporter emeritus<\/em> until the fall of 2023.\u00a0 The committee meets roughly twice per year, and the goal is to produce and maintain a set of model jury instructions that can be used as building blocks to construct jury instructions for criminal trials in the State of Vermont.<\/p>\n It is important to note that the instructions have not been approved by the Vermont Supreme Court.\u00a0 <\/strong>They are not pattern instructions, either in the sense that their use is required, or in the sense that they\u00a0will be considered\u00a0“bullet proof” on appeal.\u00a0 Judges and attorneys should instead view the instructions and reporter’s notes as a starting point and a resource to be used in the furtherance of justice.\u00a0 It is expected that the instructions will be tailored to fit the facts of each individual case before they are given to the jury.<\/p>\n General Concepts Guiding the Committee’s Work<\/strong><\/p>\n The committee started with a common understanding of the fundamental principles.\u00a0 First, we all have a healthy respect for the law.\u00a0 One primary goal is to provide an accurate statement of the law.\u00a0 We have tried to state the law in a clear way, so that jurors can understand it, but we are not acting as advocates for substantive changes in the law.\u00a0 When there are disagreements within the committee, we refer directly to the statutes or to the Supreme Court cases that have interpreted the statutes.\u00a0 If there are issues that remain unclear, we might provide some discussion about it in the notes, but in the instructions themselves we have tried to follow the law as we know it.<\/p>\n Second, we all recognize that brevity is a virtue.\u00a0 The committee members are all experienced practitioners who recognize the advantages of brief instructions.\u00a0 We are also reasonably well versed in the English language, although we can\u2019t claim to have particular expertise in linguistics, or even in the use of \u201cplain language.\u201d\u00a0 We don\u2019t go over the instructions with a fine-toothed comb, but in many instances we have simplified old instructions by changing words that are archaic or imprecise.\u00a0 We have also shortened the instructions by eliminating a lot of needless repetition.\u00a0 Little by little, the instructions have become shorter, simpler, and easier to understand.<\/p>\n Finally, there is some tension between a desire to have instructions that are ready to use, and a desire to have instructions that are tailored to the circumstances of each particular case.\u00a0 The model instructions attempt to accommodate both of these interests, in many ways.\u00a0 Although these model instructions can be used as building blocks to construct a complete set of instructions, they also require the judge to go through the intellectual exercise of tailoring the instructions to fit the case.<\/p>\n Specific Concepts\u00a0Guiding the Committee’s Work\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n First, the committee recognizes that there are problems, and potential prejudice, associated with the use of generic terms such as \u201cthe defendant\u201d or \u201cthe victim.\u201d\u00a0 The model instructions encourage the use of actual names, by providing clearly identified spaces for the names, such as (Def)_______________ or (victim)_______________.\u00a0 It is a simple matter to fill in the names, and the advantages are well worth the effort.\u00a0 See, e.g., State v. Wigg<\/span>, 2005 VT 91, 179 Vt. 65 (where the commission of a crime is in dispute and the core issue is credibility, it is error for a trial court to permit a police detective to refer to the complainant as the \u201cvictim\u201d).<\/p>\n Second, the model instructions encourage the use of specific instructions when specific acts are charged.\u00a0 In many places the statement of the elements will include a space for specific acts.\u00a0 (e.g<\/em>. \u201c(Def)__________ caused bodily injury to (victim)__________, by (specific acts)__________.\u201d) Generally the discussion of the elements will also include a sentence providing for a statement of the specific allegations, as follows: \u201cHere the State alleges that (Def)__________ caused bodily injury to (victim)__________, by (specific acts)__________.\u201d\u00a0 The committee recognizes that prosecutors do not always allege specific acts, and that a statement of the specific acts is not always required under the law.\u00a0 However, when the information does charge specific acts, it is helpful to the jurors to remind them of the specific acts that are charged.<\/p>\n Third, many of the model instructions include bracketed material.\u00a0 Generally this means that the bracketed instruction will be appropriate for some trials but not for others.\u00a0 For example, the homicide instructions contain bracketed material giving additional instructions on the meaning of \u201cunlawful killing.\u201d\u00a0 If the unlawfulness of the killing is not an issue in the case, then it is better to give the shorter instruction.\u00a0 If the unlawfulness of the killing is in dispute, then the attorneys might want to request the longer instruction.\u00a0 Furthermore, any time the facts of a case require elaboration on a particular issue, the attorneys should feel free to request additional elaboration in the instructions.\u00a0 The model instructions are not intended to cover every situation.<\/p>\n In\u00a0other instances, the brackets indicate a choice, such as a choice between one of several mental states defined by the statute.\u00a0\u00a0The model instructions contemplate that the State will elect to charge one of the choices, and that the instructions will be tailored to reflect the State\u2019s election.\u00a0 The court can simply strike out the choices that don\u2019t apply.<\/p>\n Fourth, whenever possible,\u00a0the definitions used in the instructions are taken from the statutes.\u00a0\u00a0In many instances, however,\u00a0the committee was faced with defining words that are not clearly defined under Vermont law.\u00a0 Often it was helpful to consult Black\u2019s Law Dictionary or Webster\u2019s New Collegiate Dictionary.\u00a0 Sometimes we drafted our own definitions, to describe our own understanding of what the words mean within the context.\u00a0 At other times we simply left the words undefined in the instruction.\u00a0 In many instances, we left words undefined because we thought that jurors would already have a sufficient understanding of the words.\u00a0 For example, in most cases it is not necessary to define causation, because most jurors will already understand what it means.<\/p>\n Fifth, the Committee acknowledges that many of its instructions, when referencing pronouns, generally suggest the use of [he] or [she] when referring to a defendant or other individual. \u00a0Courts and parties may also consider the use of alternate pronouns in appropriate circumstances.<\/p>\n \u00a0Preferences that have Emerged from Committee\u00a0Work<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0The committee has developed numerous specific preferences, the reasons for which were all discussed at length.\u00a0 Some of those ideas are as follows:<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0 1.\u00a0 In stating the charge, it is preferable to read the charge<\/em> as it appears in the information, and not<\/em> to try to paraphrase the applicable statute.\u00a0 In the past, many jury instructions have quoted from the statute, or paraphrased from the statute, because that seems like a natural place to start.\u00a0 However, quoting from the statute can be confusing to the jury, because the quotation might well refer to concepts that do not appear as part of the state\u2019s charge.\u00a0 Therefore it is preferable to stick with the charge<\/em>, and not to provide a general explanation of the statute.<\/p>\n \u00a0 2.\u00a0 Both in the elements, and in the explanation of the elements, it is helpful to name the specific acts<\/em> underlying the charge.\u00a0 There may be cases where the state declines to specify the alleged acts, but usually it is helpful to explain the charge by including a description of the alleged specific acts.\u00a0 The committee believes it is generally preferable for the state to allege the specific acts underlying the charge, and for the court to include the allegations in the jury instructions.<\/p>\n \u00a0 3.\u00a0 The model instructions consistently list the first essential element as the identity<\/em> of (Def)__________ as the person who committed the crime charged.\u00a0 The committee concluded that it is helpful to start each instruction in this way, even though the significance of this element might vary greatly from one case to the next.\u00a0 If there is a significant issue over identity, it might also be appropriate to give a more elaborate instruction.\u00a0 Note that if the defendant is charged as an accomplice, the jury still must find that the defendant is the person who committed the crime charged, but the \u201ccrime charged\u201d might require consideration of acts committed by others.<\/p>\n \u00a0 4.\u00a0 The committee has tried to be consistent about referring to essential elements<\/em> as \u201cessential elements,\u201d whereas there may be instances where the word \u201celements\u201d is used in a different way.<\/p>\n \u00a0 5.\u00a0 The committee does not make repeated references to the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt<\/em>.\u00a0 The committee\u2019s view is that it is important to try to keep the instructions short.\u00a0 As long as the burden of proof is stated in a clear way, there is no need to repeat it several times.\u00a0 Of course, the attorneys are free to emphasize the burden of proof in their final arguments.<\/p>\n General Notes Concerning Legal Sufficiency of Jury Instructions<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0 1.\u00a0 It is \u201cthe duty of the trial court to instruct the jury on all material issues raised by the evidence and the pertinent law. . . .\u00a0 The charge to the jury must be full, fair and correct on all issues, theories and claims within the pleadings.\u201d\u00a0 State v. McLaren<\/span>, 135 Vt. 291, 296 (1977).<\/p>\n \u00a02.\u00a0 The defendant is entitled to instructions appropriate to the case made by his or her evidence.\u00a0 The court has a duty to present the issues to the jury squarely, even in the absence of a request, \u201cfor it is always the duty of the court to charge fully and correctly upon each point indicated by the evidence, material to a decision of the case, whether requested or not.\u201d\u00a0 State v. Brisson<\/span>, 119 Vt. 48, 53 (1955); see also<\/em> State v. Gokey<\/u>, 136 Vt. 33, 36 (1978) (The court must charge \u201cfully and correctly upon each point indicated by the evidence [and] material to a decision of the case.\u201d).<\/p>\n \u00a03.\u00a0 However, a party excepting to the court\u2019s instructions must \u201cfairly and reasonably indicate to the court the particulars in which such instructions [are] claimed to be in error, or sufficiently apprise the court of the specific instruction he [or she] desire[s] on the subject matter.\u201d\u00a0 State v. Crosby<\/span>, 124 Vt. 294, 297 (1964).<\/p>\n \u00a04.\u00a0 Moreover, under the \u201cinvited error doctrine,\u201d a party cannot \u201cinduc[e] an erroneous ruling\u201d as to a jury instruction \u201cand later seek[ ] to profit from the legal consequences of having the ruling set aside.\u201d\u00a0State v. Morse<\/u>, 2019 VT 58, \u00b6 7 (quotation omitted) (defendant waived challenge to instruction by agreeing during trial court proceedings that proposed charge was an accurate statement of the law).<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0 The court has discretion to tailor the wording of the jury instructions to fit the circumstances at hand: “Within the parameters of the law, the trial court may exercise its discretion in the wording of the jury charge.” State v. Snow<\/span>, 2013 VT 19, \u00b6 8, 193 Vt. 390.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0 \u201cIn charging the jury, the trial court \u2018has a duty to avoid confusing the issues by \u201cover definition,\u201d particularly when the word in question is one of plain meaning and may well be understood by its context.\u2019\u201d State v. Dow<\/span>, 2016 VT 91, \u00b6 16, 202 Vt. 616 (quoting State v. Audette<\/span>, 128 Vt. 374, 378 (1970). \u201cTherefore, the court \u2018may decline to enlarge upon or redefine a phrase or a term whose meaning may be taken to be plain and of common understanding.\u2019\u201d Id<\/span>. (quoting Audette<\/span>, 128 Vt. at 379).<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0 Regarding special verdict forms, \u201c \u2018criminal defendants do not have a right to have special interrogatories submitted to the jury, and indeed . . . the practice is disfavored.\u2019 \u201d State v. Phillips<\/u>, 2024 VT 10, \u00b6 16 (quoting State v. Jones<\/u>, 2008 VT 67, \u00b6 26, 184 Vt. 150).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Vermont Model Criminal Jury Instructions have been developed by a committee that began meeting in 2001.\u00a0 The original members were District Court Judge Paul F. Hudson and Attorneys Dan M. Davis, Matthew I. Levine, Kathleen M. Moore, and Thomas … Continue reading