Opinion ID: 2174661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Two-Part Analysis for Lesser-Included Offenses.

Text: In State v. Jeffries, supra , the court employed a two-part analysis for determining whether a trial court must instruct on a lesser-included offense: In applying the doctrine [of lesser-included offenses,] courts must ask two questions: what is a lesser-included offense, and when should a trial court instruct on it. 430 N.W.2d at 730. In addition to Iowa, courts of several other states have adopted the preceding two-part analysis for determining whether a requested instruction on a lesser-included offense must be given, for example, see, State v. Wilson, 701 P.2d 1058 (Utah 1985); State v. Perkins, 353 N.W.2d 557 (Minn. 1984); Moore v. State, 471 N.E.2d 684 (Ind. 1984); State v. Skjonsby, 319 N.W.2d 764 (N.D.1982); and Com. v. Channell, 335 Pa.Super 438, 484 A.2d 783 (1984). See, also, Blair, supra; Janis L. Ettinger, In Search of a Reasoned Approach to the Lesser Included Offense, 50 Brook.L.Rev. 191 (1984); Edward G. Mascolo, Procedural Due Process and the Lesser-Included Offense Doctrine, 50 Alb.L.Rev. 263 (1986). Therefore, whether a court must instruct a jury on a lesser-included offense depends on answers to the questions: (1) Is the offense for which an instruction is requested actually a lesser-included offense of the crime that has been charged against a defendant? (2) Is an instruction on a lesser-included offense justified under the evidence at trial?