This was not a situation where the facts were neither “complex nor confusing” as to obviate the need for molded instructions. On the contrary, the very nature of this multi-level leader prosecution highlights the importance of providing a comprehensive definition of the term “high level” that could be applied to each defendant. In this instance, moreover, the trial court’s “statement of relevant law, when divorced from the facts, was potentially confusing or misleading to the jury,” as shown by the jury’s incisive question to the court. That question underscores the need for a carefully tailored jury charge that incorporates the language in Alexander that the State on appeal mistakenly claims was delivered. We therefore conclude that the jury instruction was inadequate and that the error was clearly capable of producing an unjust result such that a reasonable doubt is raised as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached. Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the leader convictions and remand for a new trial for Burnett and Daniels.
The State had to be aware that their assertions were not supported by the trial record. They were likely hoping that the Court would overlook this or explain it away.