Opinion ID: 1917141
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: CRIMJIG 11.02, Instruction on First-Degree Premeditated Murder

Text: Appellant contends that the district court erred by omitting the last paragraph of CRIMJIG 11.02. The paragraph that was not given provides: If you have a reasonable doubt that there was premeditation, but you find that all the other elements have been proven, then the defendant is guilty of murder in the second degree. The crime of murder in the second degree differs from murder in the first degree only in that the killing was done with intent to kill another person but not with premeditation. If you find that any element other than premeditation has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is not guilty of murder. 10 Minn. Dist. Judges Ass'n, Minnesota Practice  Jury Instruction Guides, Criminal, CRIMJIG 11.02 (5th ed.2006). Under the first and second Griller prongs, we determine whether the district court committed error that was plain by omitting the instruction. 583 N.W.2d at 740. When reviewing jury instructions, error exists if the instructions confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law. State v. Smith, 674 N.W.2d 398, 401-02 (Minn.2004); see Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 740. We analyze the district court's instructions with the understanding that trial courts possess significant discretion in the selection of instruction language and that instructions must be read as a whole to determine whether they accurately describe the law. Smith, 674 N.W.2d at 402. Appellant argues that the district court was required to read the last paragraph of CRIMJIG 11.02. He relies on a comment to the JIG to support his argument: The charge as to the lesser offense of murder in the second degree has been included because under the decision in State v. Hyleck, [286 Minn. 126, 175 N.W.2d 163 (1970)], it seems there are few cases in which murder in the second degree is not a lesser-included offense. CRIMJIG 11.02 cmt. But the defendant in Hyleck argued against the inclusion of a lesser-included offense instruction. 286 Minn. at 139, 175 N.W.2d at 172. He was indicted only for first-degree murder, but convicted of second-degree murder. Id., 175 N.W.2d at 172. He argued that it was improper for the trial judge to submit the lesser charge to the jury, and that the jury should have been allowed to find him guilty or not guilty of first-degree murder only. Id. at 140, 175 N.W.2d at 172. We said that if there was evidence from which a jury could find that defendant killed his wife with intent but without premeditation, the submission of an instruction covering second-degree murder was proper.  Id. at 139, 175 N.W.2d at 172 (emphasis added). While we have recognized that the use of the CRIMJIGs is favored, their use is not mandatory. Smith, 674 N.W.2d at 401. The district court's failure to give the entire CRIMJIG does not necessarily mean that the court erred, much less committed error that was plain. Unlike in Hyleck, appellant was charged with both first- and second-degree murder. Appellant concedes that the district court properly instructed the jury on the elements of second-degree murder, but hinges his argument on the court's failure to emphasize that premeditation is  as appellant characterizes it  the critical distinction between the two murder charges. But the court did emphasize the distinction between first- and second-degree murder when it told the jury that for second-degree murder, [i]t is not necessary that the defendant's act be premeditated. The court also told the jury to consider the charges separately. Finally, the court stressed the State's burden by saying that the jury must find appellant not guilty if the State failed to prove any of the elements of first-degree murder. The district court cannot be said to have confused or materially misstated the law when it omitted the last paragraph of CRIMJIG 11.02. We therefore hold that appellant did not prove that the district court committed plain error when it did not give the last paragraph of CRIMJIG 11.02 as part of its instructions to the jury.