“Defense. ” Whitaker contends the circuit court “erred in failing to instruct the jury on the term ‘defense.’ ” Whitaker also contends that it was incumbent on the circuit court to instruct the jurors that if they concluded that Whitaker “ ‘believed’ the value to be $300 or less,” they must find him not guilty. Generally, “court[s] need not define common terms that are readily understandable to the jury.” United States v. Somsamouth, 352 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.2003) (citing United States v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948, 986 (9th Cir.2003)); see also State v. Caldwell, 140 Idaho 740, 741, 101 P.3d 233, 234 (2004) (ordinary words used in the sense in which they are generally understood need not be defined in jury instructions); State v. Randle, 32 Kan.App.2d 291, 81 P.3d 1254, 1257 (2007) (<HOLDING>). The term “defense” is a widely used and
holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance recognizing that claim meaning will sometimes be readily apparent even to lay judges and that claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words holding that when a term is defined in the statute it need not be further alleged in the indictment recognizing that the term expense may be used to define disbursements even though the term is used in accrual accounting holding that a term which is widely used and readily comprehensible need not have a defining instruction