Title: State v. Reeves

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

233 Kan. 702 (1983)
664 P.2d 862
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant,
v.
DONALD A. REEVES, Appellee.
No. 55,197

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed June 10, 1983.
Kyle G. Smith, assistant county attorney, argued the cause and Robert T. Stephan, attorney general, and Rodney H. Symmonds, county attorney, were with him on the brief for appellant.
No appearance by appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HOLMES, J.:
This is an appeal on a question reserved by the State in a criminal action. K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(3). The defendant was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol in violation of K.S.A. 8-1567(a). In a trial to a jury he was found not guilty. The State appeals from the trial court's jury instruction which set out the elements of the charge.
K.S.A. 8-1567(a) provides:
In instructing the jury, the court gave its instruction No. 6 as follows:
"1. That the defendant drove a vehicle;
(Emphasis added.)
Instruction No. 7 read:
Instruction No. 6 is essentially the same as PIK Crim.2d 70.01 and as the defendant had submitted to a chemical analysis of his breath the court gave PIK Crim.2d 70.02 as its instruction No. 8.
The State objects to the emphasized portion of instruction No. 6, contending that the phrase "and the control of his mental or physical function was thereby impaired to the extent that he was incapable of safely driving a vehicle" erroneously adds an element to the offense not contemplated by the legislature and not contained in the statute. The thrust of the State's objection is not to the use of a definition or standard to be applied to the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol but to its being included in the elements instruction.
While the State argues that no definition or clarification of the term driving while "under the influence of alcohol" is needed, it is to be noted that the State, itself, requested a defining instruction. The State's requested instruction included a phrase defining the offense as being "unable to operate his vehicle as a person exercising ordinary care would under like or similar circumstances." Such a standard was approved by this court in State v. Sauvage, 201 Kan. 555, 441 P.2d 861 (1968), under an earlier statute (K.S.A. 8-530 [Corrick] repealed 1974), which was essentially the same as our present statute. We have recognized many times that it is proper for the trial court to furnish some guidance to the jury in its task of determining whether a defendant is "under the influence" of alcohol. In Sauvage, after quoting the then existing statute (K.S.A. 8-530), the court stated:
In City of Topeka v. Martin, 4 Kan. App.2d 218, 604 P.2d 73 (1979), the Court of Appeals, in considering the proper instruction to be given in an action under the present statute, said:
That is essentially the instruction given by the trial court in the instant case.
In establishing various presumptions to be attached to the results of chemical tests to determine the alcohol content of the blood of a driver, K.S.A. 8-1005(a)(2) provides:
K.S.A. 8-1567(b) provides:
Thus it appears that the standard contained in PIK Crim.2d 70.01 and the instruction in this case is the one contemplated by the legislature.
We do agree with the State, however, that the definition should not be included as an element of the crime. To do so might very well be confusing to the jury in a close case. It would be preferable if the elements of the offense were first set forth with the definitional standard added thereto as is the general format of the PIK Criminal Instructions. See, for example, PIK Crim.2d 56.06; 57.11; 59.19; 60.03; 61.05; 62.01; 63.03; 64.06; 65.03; 66.03 and many others. A preferable instruction might be phrased:
"1. That the defendant drove a vehicle;
The foregoing suggested instruction could be adapted for gender and for driving while under the influence of drugs, etc., in a format similar to the present PIK Crim.2d 70.01. We strongly recommend to the PIK Committee that it give consideration to a *705 revision of 70.01 to separate the definitional portion of the instruction from the elements of the offense and that trial judges make a similar change in the instruction.
As the standard or definition used in the instruction was essentially correct and the instruction acceptable, and as we are of the opinion that the instructions when considered as a whole did not mislead the jury or place an undue burden on the State, the appeal is denied.