was entitled to a specific instruction addressing the jury’s resolution of the causes of Egan’s alleged injuries in addition to or distinct from the other instructions requiring Egan to prove her injuries and damages by a preponderance of the evidence standard. In a civil trial, the burden is on the parties to furnish the trial court with proper and appropriate instructions that address their respective theories of the case. However, when a proffered instruction is not a correct statement of the law or is not supported by the evidence in the case, the trial court is not required to correct or amend the instruction rather than refusing to grant it. Peele v. Bright, 119 Va. 182, 184, 89 S.E. 238, 239 (1916). But cf. Whaley v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 353, 355-56, 200 S.E.2d 556, 558 (1973) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, Honsinger did not
recognizing that upon request the trial court may provide a limiting instruction to the jury holding good faith jury instruction is not necessary when the court has given an adequate specific intent instruction holding that a trial judge is obliged to give a correct jury instruction notwithstanding that request for instruction was technically erroneous if the evidence generates the subject matter of the jury instruction holding that in a criminal trial the trial court must correct or amend an improper instruction if the proper instruction is necessary for the jury to understand the case holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given