State v. Anthony V.

Summary

The court held that the trial court's failure to give a separate general-intent instruction was not plain error because the recklessness instruction, read as a whole, conveyed the required volitional conduct element. The omission also did not cause manifest injustice because the defendant's broader handling of a loaded, unusually dangerous revolver involved numerous intentional acts capable of establishing general intent. The court further held that rejecting the plain-error claim did not violate the theory-of-the-case doctrine because the prosecution presented the defendant's entire course of conduct as an alternative basis for liability.