Opinion ID: 2630956
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Shotgun Limiting Instruction on Prior Crimes or Civil Wrongs

Text: Before and during trial, evidence was admitted of three prior crimes or civil wrongs committed by Magallanez. First, the State filed a pretrial motion to admit evidence of the Whispers incident, arguing the evidence showed Magallanez' motive and intent. Magallanez objected. The district judge granted the State's motion, holding that the evidence was admissible to prove Magallanez' plan, knowledge, and preparation, but he also noted that Magallanez would have a continuing objection when the evidence was admitted during trial. At trial the judge also admitted evidence of a second rape of J.P. Both J.P. and her mother testified that Magallanez forced J.P. to have sex during the weekend after Thanksgiving 2006. The defense did not object to J.P.'s mother's testimony during direct, and the defense introduced J.P.'s testimony on this topic during her cross-examination. Evidence of a third prior crime or civil wrong came in through K.E., who testified without objection on both her direct examination and cross-examination that Magallanez had sold marijuana. The district judge gave the limiting instruction from PIK Crim.3d 52.06: Evidence has been admitted tending to prove that the defendant committed crimes other than the present crimes charged. This evidence may be considered solely for the purpose of proving the defendant's motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, or identity. Magallanez did not object. Now, for the first time on appeal, he argues this instruction's overbreadth requires reversal. Because Magallanez failed to object to the giving of this instruction, this court reviews this issue under the clearly erroneous standard. See State v. Vasquez, 287 Kan. 40, Syl. ¶ 6, 194 P.3d 563 (2008). Instructions are clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court is firmly convinced there is a real possibility that the jury would have rendered a different verdict if the error had not occurred. Vasquez, 287 Kan. 40, Syl. ¶ 6, 194 P.3d 563. The instruction given by the court has been described as a shotgun instruction for its failure to focus specifically on the object of proof, and it has been repeatedly criticized by this court. See State v. Donnelson, 219 Kan. 772, 777, 549 P.2d 964 (1976); State v. Moore, 218 Kan. 450, 455-56, 543 P.2d 923 (1975); State v. Rasler, 216 Kan. 582, 587, 533 P.2d 1262 (1975); State v. Bly, 215 Kan. 168, 176, 523 P.2d 397 (1974) abrogated on other grounds State v. Mims, 220 Kan. 726, 556 P.2d 387 (1976). As we have stated previously, rarely will all eight of the factors enumerated in K.S.A. 60-455 and PIK Crim.3d 52.06 be at issue in a single trial; thus the shotgun instruction is rarely proper and increases the risk of error. See Donnelson, 219 Kan. at 777, 549 P.2d 964; State v. Gibson, 30 Kan.App.2d 937, 950, 52 P.3d 339 (2002). Those elements which are obviously inapplicable should not be instructed upon. Bly, 215 Kan. at 176, 523 P.2d 397. Regarding the Whispers evidence, the trial court determined that evidence of the prior conviction for promoting obscenity to a minor was relevant to prove Magallanez' plan, knowledge, and preparation. Although we agree that admission for these limited purposes was proper, the district judge should have listed only these purposes in any related limiting instruction. It is error to instruct upon any K.S.A. 60-455 factor that is obviously inapplicable. As to the evidence of the second rape of J.P. and Magallanez' alleged selling of marijuana, the judge also erred in failing even to specify the relevant factor to be proved, much less to instruct only upon it. See State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39, 48, 144 P.3d 647 (2006). Given the weight of the evidence against Magallanez, these errors on the limiting instruction for the K.S.A. 60-455 evidence may have been deemed harmless standing alone. But they do not stand alone. Instead, they, like the two incidents of prosecutorial misconduct discussed above, are among the errors we must consider in the cumulative error calculus below.