Opinion ID: 1169778
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reckless Second-Degree Murder Of Lynette

Text: Reckless second-degree murder, or depraved heart murder at common law, is defined in K.S.A. 21-3402, which provides in part: Murder in the second degree is the killing of a human being committed: .... (b) unintentionally but recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Reckless conduct is conduct done under circumstances that show a realization of the imminence of danger to the person of another and a conscious and unjustifiable disregard of that danger. The terms gross negligence, culpable negligence, wanton negligence and wantonness are included within the term recklessness. K.S.A. 21-3201(c). Both the statutory rules and case law support the conclusion that if there is substantial evidence, reckless second-degree murder, or depraved heart murder, is a lesser included crime of first-degree murder. State v. Pierce, 260 Kan. 859, 865, 927 P.2d 929 (1996). Reckless second-degree murder is distinguished from first-degree murder and intentional second-degree murder by the level of intent required. As one commentator has explained: Extremely negligent conduct, which creates what a reasonable [person] would realize to be not only an unjustifiable but also a very high degree of risk of death or serious bodily injury to another or to othersthough unaccompanied by any intent to kill or do serious bodily injuryand which actually causes the death of another, may constitute [depraved heart] murder. 2 LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 7.4 (1986), Clark did not testify at trial. In closing defense counsel argued that the gun accidentally discharged as Lynette moved down just before she was shot. Clark now asserts that the evidence of his intent when he approached Lynette was inconclusive and that the jury could have inferred that the killing was unintentional from his demeanor and statements to police after the shooting. The only evidence at trial of an accidental shooting was the statement Clark made after arrival of the law enforcement officers that he did not intend to kill Lynette. Clark's self-serving statement alone does not support a finding of recklessness, nor does the other evidence adduced at trial support an instruction on the lesser crime of reckless second-degree murder. In addition to the facts previously stated, there was uncontroverted testimony that the muzzle of the .357 caliber revolver was closely pressed against Lynette's left temple when Clark fired the gun. Clark had fired two shots at Shine. Because the gun was a double action pistol, Clark either cocked the pistol prior to shooting Lynette or cocked and fired the gun by pulling the trigger. The gun required six pounds of pressure on the trigger to fire when the hammer was manually cocked. If the hammer was not manually cocked, the trigger pressure required to discharge the gun was 13 pounds. Shine also testified that Lynette was already bent down to her right before Clark fired the shot. This testimony contradicts Clark's assertion that the gun accidentally contacted Lynette's left temple as she was bending down to her right. Under these circumstances, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, the evidence would not have justified a jury verdict for reckless second-degree murder. Accordingly, the trial court was under no duty to instruct on this lesser included offense.