that defendant says okay I did the kidnapping. Okay, I committed the sexual act. It was awful but I didn’t mean to kill her. Hence felony murder.” The second problem with defendant’s argument is that, if the requested instruction had been given, the trial court effectively would have directed a verdict on all counts except for purposeful- or-knowing murder. Of course, defendant had the right to plead guilty to any or all of the noncapital charges, but he elected not to do so as was his constitutional right. By invoking his right to trial by jury on all counts, he endowed the jury with the role of factfinder. The court thus was not in a position to instruct the jury about what facts to find and what conclusions to draw. Cf. United States v. Urbana, 412 F.2d 1081, 1083 (5th Cir.1969) (<HOLDING>); Merrill v. United States, 338 F.2d 763,
holding that omission was not plain error holding that plain error exists when 1 an error was committed 2 that was plain 3 that affected the defendants substantial rights and 4 the error seriously affects the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings holding that instruction that omitted elements of crime that defense had conceded was error although not plain error holding that it was not plain error for the court not to give a self defense jury instruction where the defendant did not request one holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error