State v. Durst

Unlawful use of a weapon and menacing charges require the State to prove Defendant's intent to engage in particular conduct and the intent to cause a particular result. Therefore, jury instructions that refer to both the conduct and the result are not errors.

Defendant appeals multiple criminal convictions arguing the trial court erred during jury instructions. At trial, the judge refused to instruct the jury using Defendant's jury instructions which specified the required mental state for the unlawful use of a weapon and menacing. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury because the State was not required to prove, on either convicted count, that the Defendant intended to cause a particular result. The Court of Appeals rejected Defendant's argument stating that an examination of the criminal statute defining those offenses requires proof of both intent to engage in particular conduct and intent to cause a particular result. Additionally, reading the jury instructions as a whole, the jury would not have been misled by the instructions. Affirmed.