Did the trial court err in giving jury instruction No. 10?
Moore argued that the district court erred in overruling Moore’s objection to jury instruction No. 10 and in giving that instruction, because the instruction “is misleading, confusing and an incorrect statement of law.” Moore also argued that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the definition of “recklessly.” They Court concluded that the instructions, when read together, were confusing or misleading on the facts of this case, and found merit to these assignments of error. Moore was charged with first degree assault and the Court spelled out that statute. To Court reminded that first degree assault is a general intent, not a specific intent, crime. The required mens rea set forth in the statute applies only to the course of action that brings about the actual assault. In the present case, Moore was charged with intentionally or knowingly causing serious bodily injury to Kenesha under a theory of transferred intent. The gravamen of the theory was that Moore inten
