Opinion ID: 1669209
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Erroneous or Misleading Instructions

Text: The panel found several errors in the county attorney's instructions as well. In explaining lesser-included offenses to the grand jury, the assistant county attorney misstated the law: Every lesser degree of murder is intended by the statute to be characterized as an included offense. This both oversimplifies (although homicide charges are arranged on a bigger-to-smaller range, not every lesser is included in every greater charge) and over-complicates (how does a lay juror define included offense, when judges and lawyers sometimes fail to do so correctly?) the law for the grand jury. This is one more example of a situation where a prepared script would serve to discipline the instructing attorneys. The comment is error, although its difficulty most likely would cause jurors to overlook it, rather than to be influenced by it. Id. at 25. The panel also found that the prosecutor asked the grand jury at least three times to consider plea negotiations in charging. He framed his discussion in terms of what we [the county attorney's office] need from the grand jury. The panel remarked: This personal, subjective tone is inappropriate. As we have stated elsewhere in this memorandum, the grand jury generally should not be instructed to consider how its decision will impact a part of the criminal process that is outside its scope. Certainly, it should not be urged to make a case more agreeable for the prosecution. Both of these errors were committed by the assistant county attorney   . Id. The panel found the errors relating to erroneous or misleading instructions to be harmless as a matter of law.