Opinion ID: 852208
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Refusal to Give Tendered Instructions on Lesser Included Offenses

Text: The defendant contends that the trial court erroneously refused his tendered instructions that would have permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter, Criminal Recklessness, and/or Battery, as an alternative to Murder. [6] Denying the instructions, the trial court found that there is not a serious evidentiary dispute over the element or elements that distinguish the crime charged from those lesser included. Tr. at 732. Challenging this evaluation, the defendant points to testimony that he had been drinking and to the defendant's videotaped statement to police, admitted into evidence, that the shooting was simply an unplanned impulse occurring after drinking and argument and without premeditation. Appellant's Br. at 20. To support the existence of a serious evidentiary dispute that would warrant the giving of his tendered lesser included offense instructions, [7] the defendant largely relies on evidence from his custodial police interview. Because we have determined that it should have been excluded by the trial court, this issue is not likely to reappear upon retrial and thus does not merit further discussion in this appeal.