Opinion ID: 2007872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: discussion with trial court about lesser-offense instruction

Text: When trial counsel went further and suggested to the jury that it could find Bazer guilty of a lesser offense, the State initiated an off-the-record sidebar discussion with the court, and Bazer's trial counsel did not continue this line of discussion. The next day, during the State's voir dire, when the State explained to the jury that it made no difference whether the killing was accidental, Bazer's trial counsel requested a sidebar discussion. The record shows that the jury was then briefly dismissed so that the parties could discuss the unresolved issue of whether the court would allow instruction on a lesser offense. Bazer's trial counsel argued that the State's voir dire was prejudicing the jury against a possible instruction on a lesser offense. The court responded that it had cautioned Bazer's counsel the day before that there was no guarantee such an instruction would be given, but it would hear whatever arguments you have right now as to why I should deviate from what the Supreme Court has said over and over and over again on the felony murder charge. There is no lesser-included offense. Trial counsel argued that if Bazer did not formulate the requisite intent to commit the underlying crime of felony murder, then a manslaughter instruction would still be appropriate. Trial counsel explained to the court that he was very familiar with Nebraska case law that holds that [o]rdinarily it is not error for the court not to instruct for lesser-included when it's felony murder. Still, trial counsel quoted State v. Montgomery, [1] in which we said: This is not to say . . . there might not occur a set of facts under which an instruction on the lesser offenses of second degree murder or manslaughter might not be appropriate. Counsel argued that the facts of this case justified such an exception. Counsel argued that there was a delay between the assault and the robbery such that the death was not in the perpetration' of the robbery, as that language is used in the felony murder statute. Trial counsel further cited Beck v. Alabama [2] and Enmund v. Florida [3] for the argument that due process and equal protection demanded that lesser offenses should be presented to the jury. After hearing the State's argument on this point, the court concluded: I don't have to decide on lesser-included until such time as we have an instruction conference. I think that I can almost predict, though, that unless the evidence is something that is completely different than I anticipate it to be, there will be no lesser-included. I will make that decision at the proper time when we have our instruction conference. I find nothing objectionable in [the State's] statement that [t]he State has no obligation and no duty to prove an intentional killing in this case. The court went on to again caution Bazer's counsel that it was highly improbable that the jury would get any instructions other than felony murder and the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. The court explained that if Bazer could not form the intent to commit the robbery, then the court could not see how Bazer could form the intent of any other criminal actand there was no evidence of a sudden quarrel that would support an instruction on manslaughter.