Opinion ID: 1308443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Instructions on Second Degree Murder.

Text: Citing the rule that every killing is presumed to be murder of the second degree, Bunch contends the trial court erred in refusing instructions that would have permitted the jury to consider this lesser offense. Bunch asserts that he testified in a manner which would allow the trier of fact to conclude that he acted without premeditation; therefore, [t]o hold as a matter of law that no case exists for second degree murder is to invade the province of the jury. We disagree with Bunch. He fails to point out where in the record we might find any evidence that would allow the trier of fact to conclude that he acted without premeditation. All the evidence, including the testimony from Bunch himself, showed that Thomas's killing was a premeditated act. An accused is not entitled to instructions on lesser included offenses solely because the case is one of murder. Clark v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 201, 209, 257 S.E.2d 784, 789 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1049, 100 S.Ct. 741, 62 L.Ed.2d 736 (1980). A second-degree-murder instruction is appropriate only where there is evidence to support it. Justus v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 667, 678, 283 S.E.2d 905, 911 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 983, 102 S.Ct. 1491, 71 L.Ed.2d 693 (1982). See also Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605, 102 S.Ct. 2049, 72 L.Ed.2d 36 (1982).