Opinion ID: 853516
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Instructions on Criminal Recklessness and Reckless Homicide

Text: Ellis first asserts that the trial court erred when it refused his tendered instructions on criminal recklessness and reckless homicide. [2] Ellis' argument fails because the trial court was not required to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses based upon the analysis set forth in Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563 (Ind.1995). In Wright, we indicated that a requested instruction for a lesser included offense of the crime charged should be given if the lesser included offense is either inherently or factually included in the crime charged, and if, based upon the evidence presented in the case, there existed a serious evidentiary dispute about the element or elements distinguishing the greater from the lesser offense ... [such that] a jury could conclude that the lesser offense was committed but not the greater.... Id. at 567. Ellis asked the trial court to instruct the jury on reckless homicide as a lesser included offense of murder and criminal recklessness as a lesser included offense of attempted murder. Reckless Homicide. Reckless homicide is an inherently included offense of murder. Wright, 658 N.E.2d at 567. The two charges are distinguished only by the lesser culpability required to prove reckless homicide. [3] Id. The remaining question is whether this case presented a serious evidentiary dispute with respect to an element of murder such that a jury could have concluded that the lesser offense was committed but not the greater. Id. Ellis contends that there was a serious evidentiary dispute regarding his intent based upon his assertion of an involuntary intoxication defense. [4] He reasons that if the jury had determined that he did not have the requisite intent to commit murder, then the jury could have instead concluded that he committed reckless homicide. Ellis' logic confuses the function of an involuntary intoxication defense. Involuntary intoxication is a defense to the crime charged if, as a result of the intoxication, the defendant was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the offense. [5] An involuntary intoxication defense disputes the existence of intent. [6] If successful, this defense would negate culpability for any offenses Ellis committed. [7] This defense does not simultaneously establish the existence of reckless conduct. Rather, a claim that a person acted recklessly requires showing that he engage[d] in the conduct in plain, conscious, and unjustifiable disregard of harm that might result and the disregard involve[d] a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct. Ind.Code Ann. § 35-41-2-2 (West 1998). Therefore, to warrant a jury finding of reckless homicide, Ellis must demonstrate that he acted recklessly. Consequently, a mere assertion of an involuntary intoxication defense does not create a serious evidentiary dispute such that a jury could conclude Ellis did not commit murder, but instead committed the lesser included offense of reckless homicide. [8] The trial court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on reckless homicide because no serious evidentiary dispute existed. Criminal Recklessness. We have consistently held that criminal recklessness is not an inherently included offense of attempted murder. Wilson v. State, 697 N.E.2d 466, 477 (Ind.1998). As for whether criminal recklessness is a factually included offense of attempted murder, Wright, 658 N.E.2d at 567, the answer may be discerned from the charging information. The attempted murder counts, Count II and Count III, of the charging information stated: Ellis did attempt to commit the crime of Murder by knowingly or intentionally firing a deadly weapon at and against the person of [the victim], which conduct constituted a substantial step toward the commission of the crime of Murder, contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made and provided by I.C. XX-XX-X-X and I.C. XX-XX-X-X(1) and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana. (R. at 46-47.) Because this charge did not include any element of reckless behavior, reckless homicide was not factually included in the crime charged. [9] The trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on criminal recklessness because it was neither inherently nor factually included in the crime charged.