Opinion ID: 2518340
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses of felony murder?

Text: The general rule for giving lesser included offense instructions is not followed in the case of felony murder. In felony-murder cases, the trial court is only required to instruct on a lesser included offense of felony murder when the evidence of the underlying felony is weak or inconclusive. The reason for this rule is that the killer's malignant purpose is established by proof of the collateral felony. State v. Sandifer, 270 Kan. 591, 597, 17 P.3d 921 (2001). Griffin's trial counsel requested lesser offense instructions. The trial court declined on the ground that the evidence of the underlying felony was neither incomplete nor inconclusive. On appeal, Griffin argues that the evidence of the burglary was weak and inconclusive because there was no showing that the value of the damage was more than $500 or that Griffin did anything to aid or abet Dixon. The intent with which an entry is made is rarely susceptible of direct proof; it usually may be inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances. State v. Wilkins, 269 Kan. 256, Syl. ¶ 4, 7 P.3d 252 (2000). In the absence of evidence of some other explanation for the second unlawful entry into the apartment in the same night, it reasonably may be inferred from Griffin's stealing property during the first entry of the apartment that when he reentered the apartment he intended to steal again. See discussion of Issue 2(a). Thus, the evidence of the underlying burglary is neither weak nor inconclusive. The trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses of felony murder.