Opinion ID: 2588523
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: response to the jury question

Text: The main focus of Winters' argument is on the trial court's response to the jury's query: If we find guilty to No. 4 [elements instruction for severity level 7 aggravated battery], do we have to find guilty to No. 3 [elements instruction for severity level 4 aggravated battery]? After conferring with counsel, the trial court referred the jury to the multiple counts verdict instruction. Winters made no objection. The trial court had a mandatory duty to respond to the jury's request for more information regarding the law or evidence arising in the case (K.S.A. 22-3420[3]) but had discretion as to the manner and extent of the response. State v. Groschang, 272 Kan. 652, 672, 36 P.3d 231 (2001) (citing State v. Boyd, 257 Kan. 82, Syl. ¶ 1, 891 P.2d 358 [1995]). Thus, we must examine whether the trial judge's reference to the multiple counts verdict instruction was an abuse of discretion. See State v. Moore, 274 Kan. 639, 643-45, 55 P.3d 903 (2002). First, we note that there were multiple counts, not just alternative charges; thus, the trial court's initial utilization of the multiple counts verdict instruction, PIK Crim. 3d 68.07, when instructing the jury was not erroneous. However, Winters contends that when the jury asked whether, if it convicted him of severity level 7 aggravated battery, it must also convict him of severity level 4 aggravated battery, the trial court should have simply answered, No. The State contends that by referring the jury to the multiple counts verdict instruction, the trial court essentially gave the jury the answer Winters wanted. In other words, the multiple counts verdict instruction informed the jury that the answer to its question was: No. If you find the defendant guilty of severity level 7 aggravated battery you do not have to find him guilty of a severity level 4 aggravated battery. The State's contention has merit. As we have previously discussed, the multiple counts verdict instruction informed the jury it had to consider the charges separately. The instruction could not reasonably have led the jury to believe that if it convicted Winters of severity level 7 aggravated battery, it had to also convict him of severity level 4 aggravated battery. Thus, under the facts of this case, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in referring the jury to the multiple counts verdict instruction.