Opinion ID: 628318
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lesser-included Offense Instructions

Text: 34 Lujan next argues his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and a fair trial were violated when the trial court refused to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter. 2 As Lujan concedes, this circuit has agreed with a majority of those circuits addressing the issue and held that a petitioner in a non-capital case is not entitled to habeas relief for the failure to give a lesser-included offense instruction even if in our view there was sufficient evidence to warrant the giving of an instruction on a lesser included offense. Chavez v. Kerby, 848 F.2d 1101, 1103 (10th Cir.1988); see also Pitts v. Lockhart, 911 F.2d 109, 112 (8th Cir.1990) (A majority of the circuits considering this difficult issue have held that the failure of a state court to instruct on a lesser included offense in a noncapital case never raises a federal constitutional question.) (citing Valles v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 126, 127 (5th Cir.1988); Perry v. Smith, 810 F.2d 1078 (11th Cir.1987); James v. Reese, 546 F.2d 325 (9th Cir.1976); Bagby v. Sowders, 894 F.2d 792 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 929, 110 S.Ct. 2626, 110 L.Ed.2d 646 (1990)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2896, 115 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1991). 3 Lujan asks us to reconsider this rule en banc. This panel, of course, is in no position to grant that request. See United States v. Walling, 936 F.2d 469, 472 (10th Cir.1991). 35