State v. Sibert

¶29 (dissenting) — I dissent because, in my view, it was error for the trial court to (1) omit the identity of the controlled substance in the “to convict” jury instructions and (2) impose a sentence that was not authorized by the jury’s verdict. As the harmless error doctrine does not apply to the second error, I would vacate Richard Sibert’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

The Instructional Error

¶30 The lead opinion correctly sets forth the relevant controlling precedent concerning “to convict” jury instructions. See lead opinion at 311. In that regard, it rightly notes that “ ‘[t]he…