Opinion ID: 2598694
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Jury Question

Text: Moore argues that the district court erred in its response to a question submitted by the jury. We disagree. K.S.A. 22-3420(3) provides: After the jury has retired for deliberation, if they desire to be informed as to any part of the law or evidence arising in the case, they may request the officer to conduct them to the court, where the information on the point of the law shall be given, or the evidence shall be read or exhibited to them in the presence of the defendant, unless he voluntarily absents himself, and his counsel and after notice to the prosecuting attorney. Our standard of review is abuse of discretion. See State v. Manning, 257 Kan. 128, 130-31, 891 P.2d 365 (1995). Judicial discretion is abused only when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the district court. State v. Lopez, 271 Kan. 119, 125, 22 P.3d 1040 (2001). Before jury deliberations, the district court gave the following instruction: The defendant is charged with the crime of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The defendant pleads not guilty. To establish this charge, each of the following claims must be proved: 1. That the defendant fondled or touched the person of [L.V.] in a lewd manner, with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child, himself or both; 2. That [L.V.] was a child under 14 years of age; and 3. That this act occurred between 1 and 20 August, 1997, in Geary County, Kansas. Lewd fondling or touching may be defined as a fondling or touching in a manner which tends to undermine the morals of the child, which is so clearly offensive as to outrage the moral sense of a reasonable person, and which is done with the specific intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the offender or both. Lewd fondling or touching does not require contact with the sex organ of one or the other. During deliberations, the jury asked, Would the taking of videotapes qualify for the charge of aggravated indecent liberties with a child? Outside the presence of the jury, the judge expressed to Moore and counsel that in answering the question, he would simply reread the jury instruction on indecent liberties or direct the jury to that instruction. Defense counsel thought the judge should tell the jury that the answer to the question was no. After calling the jury into the courtroom, the judge told the jury to carefully reread Instruction Number 6, which sets out the elements the State has to prove to establish the charge of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Moore asserts that the jury was clearly confused and the trial court provided no guidance. He relies on State v. Bandt, 219 Kan. 816, 549 P.2d 936 (1976). Bandt was convicted of three counts of theft and one count of illegal removal of a motor vehicle identification number. After retiring for deliberations, the Bandt jury asked whether the knowledge that the goods were stolen had to exist when the goods were received or could simply exist at some later point. The district court refused to elaborate on PIK Crim. 59.01, the instruction given on the question of law. However, the judge permitted counsel for the parties to present to the jury a brief colloquy of their conflicting statements of the law. 219 Kan. at 821-22. On appeal, we noted that normally the jury instruction as given would have been sufficient but the unusual circumstances in Bandt created a positive duty for the district court to clarify its former instructions. Unlike most cases, the district court effectively required a confused jury to determine the question of Bandt's guilt or innocence without having the key question of law determined by the court. We concluded that in view of the jury's confusion under the circumstances, the district court's failure to clarify the former instructions was prejudicial and denied the defendant a fair trial. 219 Kan. at 823. The facts here differ from the facts in Bandt. The question and resolution here are similar to the question and resolution in State v. Peck, 237 Kan. 756, 703 P.2d 781 (1985). In Peck, during the course of deliberations, the jury sent a question to the district judge concerning one of the instructions. Without the intervention of the parties, the judge responded to the jury's question: `The Court declines to elaborate upon the written instructions already provided. Please re-read the instructions and apply those instructions collectively to the facts as proved to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt.' 237 Kan. at 765. On appeal, we found no abuse of discretion in the response and said: When the question has already adequately been covered by the original instructions, the trial court may decline to answer and may direct the jury to re-read the instructions already given. 237 Kan. 756, Syl. ¶ 6. Aggravated indecent liberties requires a touching. See K.S.A. 21-3504(a)(3)(A). Clearly, the videotaping of a child does not constitute a touching. Unlike the situation in Bandt, where counsel was permitted to advance conflicting statements of the law, the jury's question was already adequately covered by the court's instruction.