Opinion ID: 1686201
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: was it error for the trial court to refuse to instruct the jury on theft and second degree escape?

Text: Appellant was charged with murder, first degree robbery, and first degree escape. Appellant tendered instructions to the trial court on theft by unlawful taking and second degree escape. Appellant argued that the instructions were proper because his defense was that the killing of Cash was not to effectuate a robbery or escape. Thus, a reasonable jury could doubt that defendant is guilty of first degree robbery and first degree escape, but could conclude that he is guilty of lesser offenses. The trial court rejected appellant's tendered instructions. KRS 515.020(1) lists the elements of robbery in the first degree as: A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when, in the course of committing theft, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person with intent to accomplish the theft and when he: (a) Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or (b) Is armed with a deadly weapon; or (c) Uses or threatens the immediate use of a dangerous instrument upon any person who is not a participant in the crime. KRS 520.020(1) defines escape in the first degree as an escape from custody or a detention facility by the use of force or threat of force against another person. It is well established, however, that if the evidence points only to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of but one offense, it is not necessary or proper to give instructions embracing lower degrees. Cox v. Commonwealth, Ky., 491 S.W.2d 834, 836 (1973). As previously stated, appellant virtually admitted to murdering Cash and in closing argument appellant's counsel did admit that appellant killed Cash. The murder of Cash certainly qualifies as a use of force, an element of first degree escape, and as a physical injury, an element of first degree robbery. As such, the jury could have concluded but one thing  appellant was guilty of all counts charged, or he was not guilty of the charges. Instructions on theft and second degree escape were not warranted by the evidence presented. For this reason, a majority of this Court affirms as to this issue.