Opinion ID: 2155815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Battery Instruction

Text: Ratcliffe argues that the trial court erred in failing to give an instruction on battery as a lesser included offense of murder. The procedure for determining whether to instruct upon a lesser included offense derives from Lawrence v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 330, 375 N.E.2d 208. First, the trial court should examine the charging information and the elements of the two offenses to determine whether a conviction of the crime charged requires proof of all the essential elements of the lesser offense plus additional elements which distinguish the two offenses. Jones v. State (1988), Ind., 519 N.E.2d 1233. Second, the trial court must examine the evidence produced to prove the distinguishing elements. If the evidence on the distinguishing elements has substantial probative value and is not in serious dispute, the instruction on the lesser offense should be refused to avoid the potential of a compromise verdict. Id. The first step of the test is met if all the statutory elements of the lesser offense are part of the statutory definition of the greater offense, or if the charging instrument reveals that the manner and means used to commit the essential elements of the charged crime include all the elements of the lesser crime. Id. The murder statute states in pertinent part: Sec. 1. A person who: (1) knowingly or intentionally kills another human being; ... commits murder, a felony. Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 (West 1986). The battery statute states in pertinent part: Sec. 1. A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery, a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is: (3) a Class C felony if it results in serious bodily injury to any other person or if it is committed by means of a deadly weapon. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1 (West 1986). Battery is not inherently a lesser included offense of murder. The information charging Ratcliffe with murder, however, contained all the elements of battery. It alleged in pertinent part that Ratcliffe: did knowingly kill Robert Mark Phillips, a human being, by stabbing at and against the body of the said Robert Mark Phillips with a certain knife thereby inflicting a mortal wound on the said Mark Phillips causing him to die, all in violation of I.C. XX-XX-X-X. The second step of the Lawrence test, however, supports the trial court's refusal to instruct on battery. The evidence shows that Phillips died after Ratcliffe stabbed him repeatedly with a knife. It further shows that Phillips was unarmed during the fight and that shortly before the fight, Ratcliffe threatened to kill Phillips if he did not repay the debt that evening. This evidence has substantial probative value and supports a conclusion by the trial court that Ratcliffe acted with the intent to kill and not merely to touch Phillips. The instruction was properly refused. Ratcliff's conviction is affirmed. DeBRULER, GIVAN, PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., concur.