Opinion ID: 2350025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: PIK CRIM. 3d 51.10

Text: Next, Raskie argues that the district court erred when it instructed the jurors in Instruction No. 5 that the jury's only concern in this case is determining if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The disposition of the case thereafter is a matter for determination by the Court. According to Raskie, the instruction impermissibly shifted the burden to the defense to prove he was not guilty. Raskie cites no legal authority in support of this contention and raises this argument for the first time on appeal. In fact, during the hearing on the jury instructions, defense counsel stated, No objection, to Instruction No. 5. Because Raskie did not object to Instruction No. 5, this court applies the clearly erroneous standard of review. See K.S.A. 22-3414(3); State v. Colston, 290 Kan. 952, 969, 235 P.3d 1234 (2010); State v. Martinez, 288 Kan. 443, 451-52, 204 P.3d 601 (2009). As both parties agree, Instruction No. 5 was based on PIK Crim.3d 51.10. The jury instruction in PIK Crim.3d 51.10 has been approved by this court and is given because juries should not consider the ultimate disposition of the case. See State v. Yardley, 267 Kan. 37, 42, 978 P.2d 886 (1999); State v. Osburn, 211 Kan. 248, 254, 505 P.2d 742 (1973). Despite Raskie's argument to the contrary (and assuming no lesser included offenses are involved), a jury must choose between two options (guilty or not guilty) in order to reach a verdict in a case. Stating this fact to the jury does not dilute or destroy the presumption that the defendant is not guilty (the first option) unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty (the second option). The second option is discussed in other jury instructions that clearly inform the jury the State has the burden of proof to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In reviewing jury instructions for error, we examine the instructions as a whole, rather than isolate any one instruction, and determine if the instructions properly and fairly state the law as applied to the facts of the case. [Citations omitted.] State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132, 1139-40, 221 P.3d 1105 (2009), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3410, 177 L.Ed.2d 326 (2010). Read together, the instructions in this case were accurate statements of the law and did not shift the burden of proof to Raskie. As a result, we do not find error in the giving of Instruction No. 5 to the jury.