not seen in the autopsy and the two main reasons are the huge, massive swelling of the brain, as evidenced in the photographs, and secondly, the expert opinion about the shrivel- . I think the instruction It's refused. ing. And so .. is entirely inappropriate. In making the ruling that I'm maki w the jury to determine whether an explanation was made and states that the jury "[iJn this case ... may infer that had the dura been examined, tested, or produced in this matter that it would have been unfavorable to the State of Indiana." Appellant's Appendix at 268. Accordingly, we find the tendered instruction to mislead and invade the province of the jury. Consequently, the trial court did not err in refusing to give the instruction. See, eg., Dill v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1230, 1233 (Ind.2001) (<HOLDING>); Wray v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1062, 1067
holding that the trial court erred in giving jury instructions that offered alternative theories of murder holding that the trial court erred by giving a misleading instruction recognizing district court does not err by giving instruction that tracks pattern instruction and correctly states the law holding trial court erred in giving jury instruction requiring scienter in franchise fraud case holding that the trial court committed fundamental error by giving the standard jury instruction for attempted manslaughter by act