element of the crime charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. * ⅝ ⅜ * ⅜ ⅜ You are to consider all of the instructions as a whole and are to regard each with the others given to you. Do not single out any certain sentence or any individual point or instruction and ignore the others. Appellant’s Appendix at 61, 62, 73; Transcript at 327-328, 332. We conclude that the instructions as a whole did not mislead the jury as to the elements of the offense of child molesting. The jury was instructed regarding the elements of the offense and was repeatedly instructed that the State was required to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Any error in the penetration instruction did not result in reversible error. See, e.g., Lewis v. State, 769 N.E.2d 1077, 1083 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied. IV. The next issue is whether
holding that although portion of trial courts jury charge was inapplicable any error in providing it was harmless in light of the fact that charge considered as a whole was not likely to confuse or mislead the jury holding that although the instruction at issue could have been worded more specifically the jury instructions as a whole did not mislead the jury as to the law holding that the ninth circuit erred because the state appellate courts conclusion that one incorrect statement in jury instructions did not render the instructions likely to mislead the jury was not unreasonable holding that if jury instructions viewed as a whole fairly state the applicable law to the jury the failure to give particular instructions will not be error holding that the jury instructions taken as a whole sufficiently informed the jury of the states burden of proving that the defendant specifically intended to kill the victim