Opinion ID: 1756872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Point Four: Lesser-Included Offense Instructions

Text: In the fourth point, Appellant argues the trial court erred in refusing to give jury instructions for second-degree murder without sudden passion and voluntary manslaughter. A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction when the evidence, viewed in light most favorable to the defendant, establishes a theory or supports contrary results. State v. Avery, 120 S.W.3d 196, 200 (Mo. banc 2003). A jury instruction for a lesser-included offense is required when the evidence provides a basis both for the acquittal of the greater offense and the conviction of the lesser offense. Id. at 205. The failure to give a different lesser-included offense instruction is neither erroneous nor prejudicial when instructions for the greater offense and one lesser-included offense are given and the defendant is found guilty of the greater offense. State v. Glass, 136 S.W.3d 496, 515 (Mo. banc 2004); Johnston, 957 S.W.2d at 751-52. Appellant requested instructions for second-degree murder without sudden passion [10] and voluntary manslaughter. [11] The trial court refused Appellant's request and submitted instructions for first-degree murder [12] and second-degree murder. [13] The failure to give instructions for the different lesser-included offenses was not erroneous or prejudicial as the jury was instructed as to a lesser-included offense and found Appellant guilty of the greater offense. The trial court did not err and the point is denied.