Opinion ID: 2627198
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: second-degree reckless murder or involuntary manslaughter

Text: Next, Henson contends the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on second-degree reckless murder and involuntary manslaughter. This contention lacks merit also. As previously stated, during the jury instruction conference, defense counsel clearly requested an instruction on involuntary manslaughter. Therefore, the standard of review for this issue is the same as applied to the prior issue: a lesser included offense instruction should have been given if there was evidence supporting the lesser offense, even if the evidence is weak, as long as a jury could reasonably convict Henson of the lesser included offense. See Moore, 287 Kan. 121, Syl. ¶ 1, 194 P.3d 18. Conversely, if the evidence at trial excludes a theory of guilt on the lesser offense, an instruction need not be given. State v. Calderon, 270 Kan. 241, 256, 13 P.3d 871 (2000); State v. Moncla, 262 Kan. 58, 73-74, 936 P.2d 727 (1997). In order to meet this standard when reckless homicide instructions have been requested, there must be some evidence that the death resulted from conduct propelled by recklessness rather than by a more culpable intent, such as premeditation. According to K.S.A. 21-3201(c), [r]eckless conduct is conduct done under circumstances that show a realization of the imminence of danger to the person of another and a conscious and unjustifiable disregard for that danger. If the killing is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, the homicide is second-degree murder. K.S.A. 21-3402(b); see State v. McClanahan, 254 Kan. 104, 109, 865 P.2d 1021 (1993). When there is a lesser degree of recklessness, the homicide may be involuntary manslaughter, as defined in K.S.A. 21-3404(a). The difference between involuntary manslaughter and second-degree reckless murder is the degree of recklessness required to prove culpability. See State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 105-06, 82 P.3d 470 (2004); Calderon, 270 Kan. at 255-56, 13 P.3d 871; State v. Davidson, 267 Kan. 667, Syl. ¶ 2, 987 P.2d 335 (1999). Considering these definitions, the trial judge concluded the evidence excluded a verdict based upon reckless conduct. Specifically, the judge indicated he would not give an instruction on second-degree murder-reckless because I don't believe the evidence warrants such an instruction. The judge continued: And I think the evidence is clear in this case that the person that approached Mr. Davis approached him with a gun, pointed the gun and fired the gun and shot Mr. Davis basically in the back or top of the head and I don't think that ... falls within the meaning of the term reckless conduct. The trial court, therefore, refused to give a jury instruction on either form of reckless homicidesecond-degree reckless murder or involuntary manslaughter. Arguing this ruling was erroneous, Henson suggests pointing the loaded gun at Davis' head was reckless conduct that turned into a homicide when Davis swung his arm while rising out of his chair, causing the gun to accidentally discharge. While one witness testified the contact occurred after the gun was fired, two witnesses testified that Davis may have bumped the gun or Henson's arm at the same time as the gun went off. The question is whether this defensive action is evidence that Davis' death was the result of a reckless act. In other words, do the circumstances allow a logical inference that the discharge of the gun was the result of a reckless act? Stated another way, could a jury rationally draw an inference of recklessness from the circumstances? In considering this question, cases from this and other jurisdictions have not focused upon the one piece of evidence on which the inference was based but have considered whether the inference is logical under the circumstances. One piece of evidence cannot be plucked out of the record and examined in a vacuum. Godsey v. State, 719 S.W.2d 578, 584 (Tex. Crim.App.1986). This does not mean that the court should resolve inconsistencies; rather the court examines whether any evidence supports the inference the defendant wants to argue. For example, in State v. Bolton, 274 Kan. 1, 49 P.3d 468 (2002), this court concluded the failure to give lesser included reckless homicide instructions was not error because the inference suggested by the defendant was not supported by any other evidence. In that case, a convenience store clerk was shot during a robbery that was videotaped by the store's security camera. The defendant pointed to the video depiction of an individual who approached the sales counter, leaped onto the counter, and grabbed money from the cash register. He argued that the combination of leaping onto the counter and grabbing the money from the register, while holding a loaded weapon pointed at the clerk, made it possible that the gun accidentally fired. Nevertheless, the circumstances of the crime did not support the conclusion that the gunshot resulted from this allegedly reckless act. Specifically, eyewitness testimony substantiated that the money had been grabbed and the robber had backed away before the shot was fired. In other words, the inference the defendant tried to draw was not logical given the circumstances. Similarly, in this case there is no evidence on which to base an inference other than the testimony that Davis raised his arm at the same time as the shot was fired. The coroner's testimony was that the fatal gunshot wound traveled ... in a downward direction from the top of the head on the left-hand side, a little bit towards the back and ending up just about the level of the right ear. So it's going downwards.... No witness testified that the gunshot seemed like an accident; rather, at least one witness tried to talk Henson out of the shooting. In addition, there was overwhelming evidence of a premeditated act. And, Henson never alleged there was an accident. Rather, according to Foster, Henson told her he shot him [Davis] in the head because he was angry about being punched. This admission, which was never contradicted, excludes the potential of reckless behavior. See Hebert, 277 Kan. at 105, 82 P.3d 470 (although in statement to officers defendant indicated he did not intend to shoot victim, at trial defendant testified he did intend to shoot; admission excludes any theory of guilt that the murder was unintentional but reckless). The inference that Henson attempts to draw from the evidence is not supported by any other evidence or the circumstances of the crime. A jury could not have reasonably convicted Henson of a reckless homicide, and the trial court did not err in refusing to give the lesser included instructions.