Opinion ID: 1429000
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Requested Instruction on Manslaughter

Text: Defendant testified to the following: He was aware that Kell and Barbara Harris had discussed killing her husband. He had attempted to dissuade her. He knew Kell had stolen dynamite and stored it on defendant's property. Kell had indicated to Barbara Harris that Kell could wire the dynamite to the victim's car so as to accomplish the homicide. As part of defendant's attempt to dissuade Barbara Harris, he told her that Kell did not even know how powerful the dynamite was and how much would be necessary to kill her husband rather than make him a vegetable for life. Defendant accompanied Kell and Barbara Harris to a remote area to test the explosive power of the dynamite by wiring it to Barbara Harris' truck (not the vehicle used in the homicide) so that it exploded by use of the ignition system of the truck. Later that same night, the three drove in the truck to the mill where the victim was working and where his car was parked, but they left the area. Still later that night, Kell awakened defendant and told him to come take a ride. Defendant got in Kell's car, and Kell drove to the mill parking lot. There Kell left the car for a while and then came back and reached behind the seat and again left the car for a short period of time. Kell and defendant then returned to defendant's house. Later that day, defendant learned that the victim had been blown up in his car at the mill parking lot. Defendant denied that he knew that Kell had taken dynamite from the car and set it for explosion in the victim's car. Defendant denied that he had ever intended to kill the victim or plotted with Kell and Barbara Harris to kill the victim. ORS 163.118(1)(a) provides that criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter in the first degree when it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Defendant requested an instruction that would have permitted the jury, if it doubted that defendant was guilty of murder, to find him guilty of manslaughter in the first degree under that statute. The court refused to give the requested instruction. Defendant was found guilty of aggravated murder and sentenced accordingly.