Opinion ID: 1169778
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims made by the State rather than elements of the crime.

Text: The defendant argues that the use of claims made by the State in the burden of proof instruction rather than elements of the crime allows the jury to make a finding of guilt based on reasons other than whether the prosecution has carried its burden for each element of the crime. He asserts that this instruction violates his due process rights. We note that a similar argument was rejected in State v. Pierce . A consideration of the instructions given in this case demonstrates that the instruction complained of properly and fairly states the law as applied to the facts in this case and further demonstrates that the jury could not reasonably have been misled by the instruction. Each time the trial court instructed on charges, it used the language [t]o establish this charge, each of the following claims must be proved. (Emphasis added.)The trial court instructed the jury that [i]f you have a reasonable doubt as to the truth of any of the claims made by the State, you must find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt as to the truth of any of the claims made by the State, you should find the defendant guilty. Clearly, the claims made by the State language refers directly to the claims the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the defendant. The language used in the trial court's instruction clearly defines the responsibility of the jury. The language used is taken directly from PIK Crim.3d 52.02. In State v. Pierce, 260 Kan. at 871, we approved the language used as a clear statement of the burden of the State in criminal trials. The trial court did not err in using the phrase claims made by the State.