Opinion ID: 1212862
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Rejection of Instruction on Lesser Included Offenses.

Text: Proposed jury instruction D stated that the jury could find appellant guilty of the lesser included misdemeanor offenses of disturbing the peace, NRS 203.010, and provoking commission of a breach of the peace, NRS 203.030. [5] Appellant contends that refusal of this instruction constituted reversible error. We disagree. We recognize that the statutory offenses to which appellant directs our attention may, in many situations, qualify as lesser included offenses of NRS 200.450 as the offense charged cannot be committed without committing the lesser offense. Lisby v. State, 82 Nev. 183, 187, 414 P.2d 592, 594 (1966); see also McMichael v. State, 94 Nev. 184, 577 P.2d 398 (1978). Although we have further stated that when there is evidence absolving a defendant from guilt of the greater offense or degree but would support a ... lesser offense or degree [, t]he instruction is mandatory, without request, Lisby v. State, 82 Nev. at 187, 414 P.2d at 595, this requirement is not without limitation. First, in Lisby, we relied on State v. Moore, 48 Nev. 405, 233 P. 523 (1925), which relied upon section 6277 of the Revised Laws of 1912. That statute, and Moore, said that an instruction on lesser degrees of the crime must be given if there was supporting evidence. Here, however, the record fails to support the foundation for any verdict on a lesser degree. [6] Second, it is questionable whether some elements essential to a lesser offense were shown. [7] Lisby v. State, 82 Nev. at 187, 414 P.2d at 595. We find that respondent easily met its burden of proof on the challenge to fight charge and there is insufficient supporting evidence in the record tending to reduce the greater offense. Id. Here, statutory instructions on reasonable doubt were given, as were instructions on the presumption of innocence, and we read the record as unqualifiedly excluding a theory of guilt of either of the proffered lesser offenses. See Ogden v. State, 96 Nev. 258, 607 P.2d 576 (1980). We conclude that appellant was not prejudiced in view of the state of the instant record, as all of the instructions made it clear that appellant should either be convicted or acquitted of the crime charged in the information. The trial court committed no error in its refusal to give the instruction. Cf. Klepar v. State, 92 Nev. 103, 546 P.2d 231 (1976) (not error to refuse instruction on criminal trespass as a lesser and included offense of burglary). The remaining claims of error are rejected as being wholly without merit. We affirm the judgment of conviction. MOWBRAY, C.J., and THOMPSON and BATJER, J., concur.