Opinion ID: 2174661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Standard for a Lesser-Included Offense.

Text: The first step of the two-part analysis, set out above, requires that a court determine whether the offense described in the requested instruction on a lesser-included offense is actually an offense included within a greater offense. In State v. Garza, 236 Neb. 202, 459 N.W.2d 739 (1990), we reaffirmed the cognate-evidence method or approach to determine whether one offense is related by law and evidence to another, greater offense and is, therefore, a lesser-included offense. In Garza, we held that such a determination depends on whether a lesser-included offense existed based on the elements of the crime as charged in the information and the evidence supporting the charge. 236 Neb. at 207, 459 N.W.2d at 743. Also, in Garza, we rejected the strict statutory-elements approach expressed in State v. Lovelace, 212 Neb. 356, 360, 322 N.W.2d 673, 675 (1982): To determine whether one statutory offense is a lesser-included offense of the greater, we look to the elements of the crime and not to the facts of the case. More recently, in State v. Massa, 242 Neb. 70, 493 N.W.2d 175 (1992), we again employed the cognate-evidence method or approach to determine whether a court must instruct on a lesser-included offense. As stated in State v. Jeffries, 430 N.W.2d 728, 731 (Iowa 1988): Under the cognate approach, a defendant may be convicted of a lesser offense that, under the strict statutory-elements approach, is not necessarily committed in the course of committing the greater offense. The lesser offense is related and, hence, cognate in the sense that it has several elements in common with the greater offense but may have one or two elements not essential to the greater crime.... ... [T]he cognate-evidence method, focuses on the evidence supporting the charge rather than on the statutory elements or the accusatory pleading. The distinction between a lesser-included offense necessarily included in a greater offense and a lesser-included offense determined under the cognate-evidence method or approach was expressed in People v. Beach, 429 Mich. 450, 463-64, 418 N.W.2d 861, 867 (1988): [W]hen the lesser offense is necessarily included, rather than cognate, the evidence will always support the lesser offense if it supports the greater. However, cognate offenses require the evidence in each particular trial to be examined to determine whether the specific evidence adduced would support a conviction of the requested lesser offense. Subsequently, in People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482, 495, 456 N.W.2d 10, 15 (1990), the Michigan Supreme Court explained the difference between necessary lesser-included offenses and those determined under the cognate-evidence method or approach: Necessarily included lesser offenses are those in which the defendant cannot commit the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense. On the other hand, cognate lesser included offenses are those in which the lesser offense shares some common elements with the greater offense, but which may also include some elements not found in the greater offense. See, also, People v. Pouncey, 437 Mich. 382, 387 n. 4, 471 N.W.2d 346, 349 n. 4 (1991): A cognate lesser offense shares several elements and is in the same class of offenses as the greater crime. However, it differs from the greater crime in that it contains some elements not found in the higher offense. See, further, State v. Boyenger, 95 Idaho 396, 509 P.2d 1317 (1973) (when the evidence indicates that a defendant might be convicted of a lesser-included offense, an instruction on the lesser offense is appropriate).