Opinion ID: 1401773
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: second degree stalking

Text: Morgan takes issue with the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the definition of course of conduct as it pertained to the second-degree stalking charge. The record indicates that while defense counsel orally requested such instruction, he did not tender a written definition. Nonetheless, the trial court ruled that it would not give a written definition, but that defense counsel was free to argue it to the jury. Accordingly, during closing argument, defense counsel explained that second-degree stalking requires proof of an intentional course of conduct, which is defined as a pattern of conduct composed of two (2) or more acts, evidencing a continuity of purpose. [41] However, in the Commonwealth's closing argument that followed, the prosecutor made the following statements: You get to decide what he did that day, that's what these instructions talk about. Let's look at this. The third one is definitions and I'm going to come back, you'll only need these words if they are used in an instruction and you don't understand them. Mr. Preston told you some things that are not in here. He said some things. I didn't object. It's his closing argument. He told you some of what he said was the law. The judge tells you what the law is. . . . [Y]ou said you would follow the law the judge gave you in the form of instructions. If it's not written in here, it's not the law. As noted in 1 Cooper, Kentucky Instructions to Juries (Criminal) § 3.10, p. 91 (4th ed.1999), the definition of course of conduct must accompany the definition of stalk. Without it, the jury has no way of knowing that the pattern of conduct necessary to prove stalking must include at least two intentional acts. Here, the jury was provided the written definition of stalk, but not the definition of course of conduct. And while the trial court ruled that defense counsel could argue the definition to the jury, the prosecutor's comments eviscerated any explanation that was given. Morgan was entitled to an instruction as to all of the elements of the offense of stalking. The definition of course of conduct must accompany the definition of stalk. We must conclude that the failure to properly instruct the jury on all of the elements of stalking was reversible error.