Opinion ID: 2419640
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to administer lesserincluded instructions.

Text: For this point, Hood argues that the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury with regard to the lesser-included offense of simple robbery. Hood's abstract shows that he moved for an instruction on simple robbery pursuant to AMCI 301, which he proffered as Defendant's Exhibit Two, in addition to the AMCI 301 transitional instruction proffered as Defendant's Exhibit Three. Hood's abstract also shows that he proffered AMCI 2103 as Defendant's Exhibit Four, along with requested additions to State's AMCI 8101 and State's AMCI 8301, proffered as Defendant's Exhibit Five, as well as an objection to State's 9202. Hood has failed to abstract the instructions that were administered to the jury. More importantly, he has failed to abstract his proffered instructions. Even the record lacks the substance of the various defendant's exhibits that Hood proffered. A proffered instruction must be included in the record and abstract to enable the appellate court to consider it. Wallace v. State, 326 Ark. 376, 931 S.W.2d 113 (1996). We thus decline to consider the merits of Hood's argument. Affirmed. NEWBERN and BROWN, JJ., concur.