ANDREW AUSTIN, Judge.
MEMBERS OF THE JURY:
You have heard the evidence in this case. I will now instruct you on the law that you must apply. It is your duty to follow the law as I give it to you. On the other hand, you the jury are the judges of the facts. Do not consider any statement that I have made in the course of trial or will make in these instructions as an indication that I have any opinion about the facts of this case.
After I instruct you on the law, the attorneys will have an opportunity to make their closing arguments. Statements and arguments of the attorneys are not evidence and are not instructions on the law. They are intended only to assist the jury in understanding the evidence and the parties' contentions.
Answer each question from the facts as you find them. Do not decide who you think should win and then answer the questions accordingly. Your answers and your verdict must be unanimous.
You must answer all questions from a preponderance of the evidence. By this is meant the greater weight and degree of credible evidence before you. In other words, a preponderance of the evidence just means the amount of evidence that persuades you that a claim is more likely so than not so. In determining whether any fact has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence in the case, you may, unless otherwise instructed, consider the testimony of all witnesses, regardless of who may have called them, and all exhibits received in evidence, regardless of who may have produced them.
You will recall that during the course of this trial I instructed you that certain testimony and certain exhibits were admitted into evidence for a limited purpose and I instructed you that you may consider some documents as evidence against one party but not against another. You may consider such evidence only for the specific limited purposes for which it was admitted.
In determining the weight to give to the testimony of a witness, you should ask yourself whether there was evidence tending to prove that the witness testified falsely concerning some important fact, or whether there was evidence that at some other time the witness said or did something, or failed to say or do something, that was different from the testimony the witness gave before you during the trial.
You should keep in mind, of course, that a simple mistake by a witness does not necessarily mean that the witness was not telling the truth as he or she remembers it, because people may forget some things or remember other things inaccurately. So, if a witness has made a misstatement, you need to consider whether that misstatement was an intentional falsehood or simply an innocent lapse of memory; and the significance of that may depend on whether it has to do with an important fact or with only an unimportant detail.
While you should consider only the evidence in this case, you are permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel are justified in the light of common experience. In other words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions that reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts that have been established by the testimony and evidence in the case.
The testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to prove any fact, even if a greater number of witnesses may have testified to the contrary, if after considering all the other evidence you believe that single witness.
There are two types of evidence that you may consider in properly finding the truth as to the facts in the case. One is direct evidence — such as testimony of an eyewitness. The other is indirect or circumstantial evidence — the proof of a chain of circumstances that indicates the existence or nonexistence of certain other facts. As a general rule, the law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, but simply requires that you find the facts from a preponderance of all the evidence, both direct and circumstantial.
Any notes that you have taken during this trial are only aids to memory. If your memory should differ from your notes, then you should rely on your memory and not on the notes. The notes are not evidence. A juror who has not taken notes should rely on his or her independent recollection of the evidence and should not be unduly influenced by the notes of other jurors. Notes are not entitled to any greater weight than the recollection or impression of each juror about the testimony.
It is your sworn duty as jurors to discuss the case with one another in an effort to reach agreement if you can do so. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after full consideration of the evidence with the other members of the jury. While you are discussing the case, do not hesitate to re-examine your own opinion and change your mind if you become convinced that you are wrong. However, do not give up your honest beliefs solely because the others think differently, or merely to finish the case.
Remember that in a very real way you are the judges — judges of the facts. Your only interest is to seek the truth from the evidence in the case.
In this case, the plaintiff must prove every essential part of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
A preponderance of the evidence simply means evidence that persuades you that the plaintiff's claim is more likely true than not true.
In deciding whether any fact has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence, you may, unless otherwise instructed, consider the testimony of all witnesses, regardless of who may have called them, and all exhibits received in evidence, regardless of who may have produced them.
If the proof fails to establish any essential element of the plaintiff's claim by a preponderance of the evidence, you should find for the defendant as to that claim.
SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS
A. False Imprisonment
"False Imprisonment" is the willful detention of another without legal justification, against her consent, whether such detention be effected by violence, by threat, or by any other means that restrains a person from moving from one place to another. In order to prove a claim of false imprisonment a plaintiff must prove: (1) willful detention; (2) without consent; and, (3) without authority of law. "Detention by threat, violence, or other means" requires proof that the threat was such as would inspire in an ordinary person just fear of injury to his person, reputation, or property. "Restraint" means detention from which a person cannot ordinarily relieve himself. A threat which is alleged to have resulted in false imprisonment must be calculated to detain the person. It must result in more than intimidation, such that a person cannot by ordinary means relieve herself from restraint or detention.
You are instructed that under some circumstances, a detention may be privileged. A detention is privileged if a person reasonably believes that another has stolen or is attempting to steal property and then detains that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate ownership of the property.
B. Assault
A person commits an assault if he intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when he or she knows or should reasonably believe that the other person will regard the contact as offense or provocative.
"Intentionally" means that the person is aware that it practically certain that his conduct will cause the intended result. "Knowingly" means that the person is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause the intended result. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the person's conduct and the circumstances known to him, his disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the person's situation.
C. Damages
If the plaintiff has proven his claim against the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, you must determine the damages to which she is entitled. You should not interpret the fact that I have given instructions about the plaintiff's damages as an indication in any way that I believe that the plaintiff should, or should not, win this case. It is your task first to decide whether the defendant is liable. I am instructing you on damages only so that you will have guidance in the event you decide that the defendant is liable and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover money from the defendant.
Meade alleges that Defendant's actions caused her mental anguish. The term "mental anguish" implies a relatively high degree of mental pain and distress. It is more than mere disappointment, anger, resentment, or embarrassment. It includes a mental sensation of pain resulting from such painful emotions as grief, severe disappointment, indignation, wounded pride, shame, despair, and/or public humiliation.
D. Closing Instructions
This concludes my instructions on the law in this case. You will now hear the attorney's closing arguments. You will then retire to the jury room to deliberate on your verdict. You may take this charge with you as well as any exhibits which the Court has admitted into evidence. You should first select a Foreperson and then begin your deliberations. If you recess during your deliberations, you must follow the instructions the Court has previously given concerning your conduct during the trial. Your Foreperson is to fill in the form answering the jury questions to reflect your unanimous verdict. Unless I direct you otherwise, do not reveal your answers until such time as you are discharged. You must never disclose to anyone, not even to me, your numerical division on any question.
If you want to communicate with me at any time, please give a written message to the bailiff, who will bring it to me. I will then respond as promptly as possible either in writing or by meeting with you in the courtroom. I will always first show the attorneys your question and my response before I answer your question.
After you have reached a verdict, you are not required to talk with anyone about the case unless I order you to do so.