Opinion ID: 1123022
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: in jury instruction

Text: The defendant challenges jury instruction No. 4 on two grounds. This instruction presents a slight modification of PIK Crim.3d 52.02. The defendant does not argue that the modification is erroneous, rather he bases his contentions on the language which duplicates PIK Crim. 3d 52.02. Instruction No. 4 provides: The State has the burden of proving the defendant is guilty. The defendant is not required to prove he is not guilty. You must assume the defendant is not guilty unless the evidence convinces you of the defendant's guilt. Your determination must be made in accordance with these instructions, and this is the test you should apply: If you have no reasonable doubt as to the truth of any of the claims made by the State, you must find the defendant guilty. If you have reasonable doubt as to any of the claims made by the State, you must find the defendant not guilty. (Emphasis added.) The defendant first argues that the use of the words not guilty in the first portion of the instruction, rather than a statement that the defendant is presumed innocent, is clearly erroneous because it dilutes the presumption of innocence guaranteed by statute. K.S.A. 21-3109. Second, he argues that the phrase claims made by the State instead of elements of the offense is clearly erroneous because it leads to confusion regarding the burden of proof. He asserts that the latter problem is exacerbated when instruction No. 4 is read together with instructions Nos. 5, 7, 8, and 9. The defendant did not object to the above instruction at trial. No party may assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction unless he or she objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he or she objects and the grounds of the objection unless the instruction is clearly erroneous. K.S.A. 22-3414(3). An instruction is clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court reaches a firm conviction that if the trial error had not occurred there is a real possibility the jury would have returned a different verdict. State v. Deavers, 252 Kan. 149, 164-65, 843 P.2d 695 (1992), cert. denied 508 U.S. 978 (1993). A. The use of the words not guilty rather than presumed innocent in instruction No. 4. The defendant contends that the failure to include the presumption of innocence and the use of the terms guilty and not guilty in the instruction do not accurately convey the law and do not fully convey the fundamental constitutional right to the presumption of innocence. The defendant relies on the analysis of Flores v. State, 896 P.2d 558, reh. denied 899 P.2d 1162 (Okla. Crim.), cert. denied 133 L. Ed. 2d 450 (1995). In Flores, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals examined the identical issue of whether the terms not guilty or innocent best preserved a defendant's rights. After discussing the legal importance of the presumption of innocence in criminal trials, the Flores court focused on the effect of the language on the jury. The court stated: The presumption of innocence commands the jury to start their deliberations from the premise there exists an absence of guilt while the presumption of not guilty conveys there exists an absence of sufficient proof of guilt. While the distinction is subtle, we find it amounts to an impermissible lessening of the burden of proof by expanding the degree of doubt that is permissible.... Instruction No. 2, [using not guilty language] conveys to the minds of the jury an erroneous impression, in that it may be construed as varying the rule of law. Further, it imparts a qualification of the meaning, scope, manifest design and operation of the legal presumption of innocence. The term presumed innocent has a self-evident meaning comprehensible to the lay juror. The meaning is hardly susceptible to improvement by judicial efforts. Instead of improvement, the most likely outcome of [instruction No. 2] is unnecessary confusion and a constitutionally impermissible lessening of the required standard of proof. Flores, 896 P.2d at 562. The defendant urges this court to accept the reasoning of Flores and find PIK Crim.3d 52.02 invalid. Under the instruction given by the trial court in this case, the defendant's presumption of innocence is preserved. We have examined the Flores argument and adopted an opposing view. In State v. Keeler, 238 Kan. 356, 710 P.2d 1279 (1985), we held that not guilty was preferable to innocent in an instruction to the jury. We found authority persuasive that stated in part: `In ordinary lay usage, the term not guilty is often considered to be synonymous with innocent. In American criminal jurisprudence, however, they are not totally synonymous. Not Guilty is a legal finding by the jury that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof. A Not Guilty verdict can result from either of two states of mind on the part of the jury: that they believe the defendant is factually innocent and did not commit the crime; or, although they do not necessarily believe he is innocent, and even tend to believe he did not commit the crime, the prosecution's case was not sufficiently strong to convince them of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. `Within this second state of mind (reasonable doubt) resulting in a Not Guilty verdict lies the distinction between the terms not guilty and innocent. `Since a Not Guilty verdict can be predicated on the gray zone of uncertainty somewhere between a belief in innocence and the required proof of guilt, it would be incorrect to state that a conclusion of Not Guilty means that the jury believes the defendant is innocent. Although a verdict of Not Guilty certainly may be based upon a belief in the defendant's innocence, it just as certainly may be based on a hesitation in belief of guilty which amounts to a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.' 238 Kan. at 362-63 (quoting Bugliosi, Not Guilty and Innocent: The Problem Children of Reasonable Doubt, Vol. 20, No. 2, Court Review 16 [1983]). We further noted in Keeler: The Advisory Committee on Criminal Jury Instructions recognized the problem in part and now PIK Crim.2d 52.02 refers to a determination of `whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty' rather than the earlier version which directs the jury to `determine the innocence or guilt of the defendant.' 238 Kan. at 363. We concluded that not guilty was preferable language to innocent. 238 Kan. at 364. More recently, in State v. Johnson, 255 Kan. 252, 259, 874 P.2d 623 (1994), the same challenge to PIK Crim.3d 52.02 arose. In Johnson, we found Keeler to control the issue and held that the instruction was not clearly erroneous. Keeler and Johnson control here. We hold that the provisions of PIK Crim.3d 52.02 accurately reflect the law of this State and properly advise the jury in a criminal case of the burden of proof, the presumption of innocence, and reasonable doubt. B. The use of the words claims made by the State rather than elements of the crime in instruction No. 4. The defendant argues that the use of claims made by the State rather than elements of the crime allows the jury to make a finding of guilt based on other reasons than whether the prosecution has carried its burden for each element of the crime. He asserts that this instruction violates his due process rights. However, it must be noted that the defendant did not object to this instruction at trial. The defendant's argument fails to consider the instructions as a whole. The law is well settled that upon review of a challenged jury instruction, the instructions are to be considered together and read as a whole without isolating any one instruction. If the instructions properly and fairly state the law as applied to the facts in the case, and if the jury could not reasonably have been misled by them, then the instructions do not constitute reversible error, although they may be in some small way erroneous. State v. Johnson, 255 Kan. 252, Syl. ¶ 4. 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. At no time in the trial court's instructions is the phrase elements of the offense used. Each time the trial court instructed on charges, it used the language to establish this charge, each of the following claims must be proved. (Instructions Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9.) The trial court instructed the jury that [i]f you have no 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 reasonable doubt as to any of the claims made by the State, you must find the defendant not 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. We approve of the language used as a clear statement of the burden of the State in criminal trials.