Title: State v. Smith

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

215 Kan. 865 (1974)
528 P.2d 1195
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
v.
WAYNE SMITH, Appellant.
No. 47,493

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 7, 1974.
Charles M. Tuley, of May and Tuley, of Atchison, argued the cause, and John S. May, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for appellant.
J. David Farris, county attorney, argued the cause, and Larry R. Mears, assistant county attorney, was with him on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FATZER, C.J.:
The appellant, Wayne Smith, was convicted by a jury of criminal injury to persons (K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 21-3431) and criminal damage to property (K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 21-3720). He was sentenced for a period of from one to five years for the crime of criminal injury to persons and for a period of from one to five years for the crime of criminal damage to property. (K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 21-4501 [e].) The sentences were ordered to run consecutively.
On appeal, the appellant asserts error in the sentence imposed for the conviction of criminal damage to property upon the ground the instruction given by the district court did not set out the value *866 distinction between a class E felony and class A misdemeanor, nor did the jury's verdict specify the amount of damage done to the property.
The district court's instruction on the charge of criminal damage to property was as follows:
"INSTRUCTION No. 4
The jury returned a verdict finding the appellant guilty of criminal damage to property without consent. The verdict contained no statement of the value of the property nor the extent of damage done to the property. The appellant then moved the court for a finding of guilty to a lesser included offense, specifically, a misdemeanor conviction for criminal damage to property. The district court overruled the motion and sentenced appellant as being guilty of a class E felony. (K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 21-4501 [e].)
No objection was made by the appellant in the district court with respect to Instruction No. 4. It is a well established rule of this Court that objections to the district court's instructions will not be considered when raised for the first time on appeal unless the instruction is clearly erroneous. (State v. Wilson, 215 Kan. 28, 523 P.2d 337.)
Was the instruction given by the district court clearly erroneous?
In charging the jury in a criminal case, it is the duty of the district court to define the offense charged, stating to the jury the essential elements of the crime, either in the language of the statute or in appropriate and accurate language of the court. (State v. Schriner, 215 Kan. 86, 523 P.2d 703.) Moreover, K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 21-3107 (3) provides:
*867 Regarding this statute, in State v. Warbritton, 211 Kan. 506, 506 P.2d 1152, we said:
Criminal damage to property is defined by K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 21-3720 as follows:
The statute is a consolidation of 24 prior laws dealing with offenses against property resulting in damage. (11 Vernon's Kan. Stat. Anno., Criminal Code [Spring & Ryan], § 21-3720.) Simply stated, K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 21-3720 (1) (a) requires an act which damages or substantially impairs the use of another's property, that is done without consent. According to subsection (2) above, the classification of the crime as either a class E felony or class A misdemeanor is dependent upon both the value of the property and the extent of damage done to the property. Subsection (2) requires the crime be classified as a class A misdemeanor when "the property damaged by such acts is of the value of less than fifty dollars ($50) or is of the value of fifty dollars ($50) or more and is damaged to the extent of less than fifty dollars ($50)." To be classified as a class E felony, the property must sustain damage to the extent of fifty dollars or more.
For the state to convict a person of a felony for criminal damage to property, it is required to prove 1) an act or impairment in using the property, done without consent of the owner or person having an interest in the property; 2) the value of the property was more than $50, and 3) the amount of damage done to the property was $50 or more.
*868 In the instant case, the instruction given by the district court is identical to that given for the crime of criminal damage to property without consent found in PIK Criminal, Sec. 59.23. Both instructions speak only to the act or impairment in using another's property  the first element stated above. The court should have included as a part of its instructions PIK 68.11 requiring the jury to set forth in its verdict the value of the property damaged and the amount of damage done to the property.
As indicated, the verdict did not state the value of the property damaged or the amount of damage done to the property, nor did Instruction No. 4 require the jury to make such findings. The jury found the appellant guilty of criminal damage to property without the consent and under the circumstances prevailing, we are of the opinion the record is sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser included misdemeanor offense, but is insufficient to support a felony conviction for criminal damage done to property without consent. That part of the judgment convicting and sentencing the appellant of a felony for criminal damage to property is reversed and the sentence is set aside. (State v. Towner, 202 Kan. 25, 446 P.2d 719; K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 22-3605.) The cause is remanded to the district court with directions to recall appellant for resentencing for a class A misdemeanor conviction for criminal damage to property without consent in accord with the provisions of K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 21-4502 (a).
It is so ordered.