Opinion ID: 2095102
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jurisdictional Approaches Lesser-Included Instructions

Text: The approaches applied by various courts in determining whether a lesser-included offense instruction should be presented to a jury have been divided into three categories: trial integrity jurisdictions, party autonomy jurisdictions, and hybrid jurisdictions. [7] Courts in the first category require an instruction on any lesser-included offense supported by the evidence, even if neither party requests one. [8] In such jurisdictions, the key question is whether trial process is compromised by omission of the lesser-included instruction. [9] The rationale for this trial integrity approach [10] , is that it is the judge's role to fully instruct the jury on the law applicable to each particular case. [11] In trial integrity jurisdictions, if lesser-included instructions are warranted by the evidence, the trial judges must sua sponte give such an instruction. This analytical model does not permit the parties to adopt an all-or-nothing trial strategy. Very few states have adopted a pure trial integrity `model because of the historical deference that courts give to parties to develop their own trial strategy within the American adversarial process. Accordingly, many courts in other jurisdictions apply what is referred to as the party autonomy approach. [12] These jurisdictions have concluded that the trial judge should not interfere with the trial strategies of the parties. Consequently, in these jurisdictions, trial judges withhold deciding the issue of whether there is a rational basis in the evidence to charge the jury on a lesser-included offense unless requested to do so by a party. [13] Pursuant to the party autonomy approach, the burden is initially on the parties rather than the trial judge to determine whether a lesser-included offense instruction is to be considered as an option for the jury. A third approach takes the middle ground. In these hybrid jurisdictions, [14] the trial judge has the discretion to instruct sua sponte on a lesser-included offense. [15] This approach attempts to remove the all or nothing trial strategy present in party autonomy jurisdictions, while still affording the trial judge the discretion over whether to give a lesser-included offense instruction that is not present in trial integrity jurisdictions. [16] The discretionary authority granted to trial judges in these hybrid jurisdictions also allows for a trial judge to withhold the giving of a lesser-included offense instruction, even though there is a substantial basis in the evidence, in the absence of a request for such an instruction by one of the parties. Not surprisingly, there appears to be significant conflict in these jurisdictions concerning the scope and application of such discretion. [17]