Opinion ID: 1401773
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: voyeurism instruction

Text: Morgan argues that he was entitled to a voyeurism instruction as a lesser-included offense of first-degree burglary. He contends that the jury could have reasonably believed that he entered D.C.'s trailer with only the intent to see her naked, not to commit another crime. The trial court denied the instruction on the grounds that voyeurism is not a lesser-included offense of first-degree burglary. We agree. A lesser-included offense is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged. KRS 505.020(2)(a). In other words, if the lesser offense requires proof of a fact not required to prove the greater offense, then the lesser offense is not included in the greater offense, but is simply a separate, uncharged offense. [43] First-degree burglary is committed when a person, with the intent to commit a crime, knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building and, when effecting entry or while in the building or in the immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime: (a) is armed with explosives or a deadly weapon; or (b) causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or (c) uses or threatens the use of a dangerous instrument against any person who is not a participant in the crime. [44] In comparison, KRS 531.090(1) provides, in pertinent part, that a person is guilty of voyeurism when: (a) He or she intentionally: .... (3) Enters or remains unlawfully in or upon the premises of another for the purpose of observing or viewing the sexual conduct, genitals, or nipple of the female breast of another person without the person's consent; and (b) The other person is in a place where a reasonable person would believe that his or her sexual conduct, genitals, or nipple of the female breast will not be observed, viewed, photographed, filmed, or videotaped without his or her knowledge. Voyeurism requires proof that the defendant entered or remained unlawfully for the purpose of viewing another individual's body or sexual conduct. Proof of that fact is not required to convict a person of burglary and, as such, voyeurism is not a lesser-included offense. Under Morgan's theory, i.e., that he entered D.C.'s trailer only to look at her and not to commit a crime (although he fails to recognize that voyeurism is a crime), he was entitled to an instruction on criminal trespass, which he was, in fact, given. Moreover, the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Morgan unlawfully entered D.C.'s trailer with the intention of committing a crime therein and was armed with a deadly weapon. Under the facts presented, the jury could not possibly have believed that Morgan entered without the intent to commit a crime and thus, even had he been entitled to a voyeurism instruction, any failure to give such would have been harmless. [45]