Opinion ID: 2571537
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Order of Deliberations

Text: Defendant argues that jurors received an erroneous acquit-first or hard-transition instruction that forced them to reach a unanimous decision not to convict on premeditated first-degree murder before moving on to consideration of any lesser included offense. In fact, the wording of both Instruction No. 2 and Instruction No. 4 took a soft-transition approach. Instruction No. 2 said: [I]f you do not find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, you should then consider the lesser offense of murder in the second degree as defined in Instruction No. 4. (Emphasis added.) Instruction No. 4 said:  If you do not agree that the defendant is guilty of murder in the first degree, you should then consider the lesser included offense of murder in the second degree. (Emphasis added.) We have previously approved of ordering jury deliberations in this manner; these alternative wordings are not coercive and correctly state the law. See Scott-Herring, ___ kan. at ____-____, 159 P.3d 1028, slip op. at 9-11; State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39, 65-66, 144 P.3d 647 (2006); State v. Hurt, 278 Kan. 676, 682-86, 101 P.3d 1249 (2004); State v. Davis, 275 Kan. 107, 126-27, 61 P.3d 701 (2003); State v. Roberson, 272 Kan. 1143, 1154-55, 38 P.3d 715 (2002), overruled on other grounds State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39, 144 P.3d 647; State v. Korbel, 231 Kan. 657, 661, 647 P.2d 1301 (1982). There was no error on this issue.