Opinion ID: 2625753
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Burglary Elements Instruction

Text: Dixon next argues that the jury was not properly instructed on the intent necessary to find him guilty of the second burglary and, thus, the felony murders it supported. Specifically, Dixon contends that the instructions did not tell the jury what makes criminal damage to property, one of the alternative predicate felonies for the burglary, a felony rather than a misdemeanor. Under the law governing this case, criminal damage to property was a felony only if the value of the damage was more than $500 but less than $25,000. See K.S.A. 21-3720 (Furse 1995). The burglary elements instruction did not include the dollar amounts for criminal damage to property, but the criminal damage to property elements instruction did include the correct amounts. The jury got no other definition of criminal damage to property and entered a special verdict, finding that Dixon caused at least $500 but less than $25,000 damage. The jury was not asked to and did not make a particular finding on whether Dixon intended to do felony-level criminal damage to property upon each entry into Shaw's apartment. This court has often stated that jury 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 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. Hunt, 257 Kan. 388, 392, 894 P.2d 178 (1995); see State v. Butler, 257 Kan. 1043, 1065, 897 P.2d 1007 (1995). Errors that do not affirmatively prejudice the substantial rights of a complaining party do not require reversal if substantial justice has been done. State v. Holbrook, 261 Kan. 635, 636-37, 932 P.2d 958 (1997); State v. Johnson, 255 Kan. 140, 148, 871 P.2d 1246 (1994). On pattern instructions, we have said: `The use of PIK instructions is not mandatory, but is strongly recommended. The pattern instructions have been developed by a knowledgeable committee to bring accuracy, clarity, and uniformity to jury instructions. They should be the starting point in the preparation of any set of jury instructions. If the particular facts in a given case require modification of the applicable pattern instruction or the addition of some instruction not included in PIK, the trial court should not hesitate to make such modification or addition. However, absent such need, PIK instructions and recommendations should be followed.' [Citations omitted.] Holbrook, 261 Kan. at 637, 932 P.2d 958. Instructions Nos. 14 and 17, consistent with PIK Crim.3d 56.02, set out the elements for felony murder, i.e., a killing done while in the commission of, attempting to commit, or in flight from a burglary, and stated the elements of burglary as: 1. That [Dixon] knowingly entered or remained in a building which is a dwelling; 2. That [Dixon] did so without authority; 3. That [Dixon] did so with the intent to commit a theft, and/or aggravated arson, a felony, and/or criminal damage to property, a felony, therein; and 4. That this act occurred on or about the 29th day of July, 2001 in Lyon County, Kansas. Instruction No. 24, in accord with PIK Crim.3d 59.17, again set out the elements for a burglary, defining it exactly as it had been defined in Instructions Nos. 14 and 17 and again listing the three possible felonies Dixon could have intended to commit on entry. It also directed the jury to Instructions Nos. 18, 25, and 26 for the three alternative predicate felonies for the second burglary. Instruction No. 26, in accord with PIK Crim.3d 59.23 and PIK Crim.3d 59.70, set out the elements of only felony criminal damage to property: 1. That Eastgate Plaza, Inc., was the owner of property described as Eastgate Plaza Apartments, 707 B; that [Shaw] had an interest as a renter in property located in the residence described as Apartment 707 B of Eastgate Plaza Apartments; 2. That [Dixon] intentionally damaged, destroyed, or substantially impaired the use of the property owned by [Shaw] and/or Eastgate Plaza, Inc., by means other than by fire or explosion; 3. That [Dixon] did so without the consent of [Shaw] and Eastgate Plaza, Inc.; 4. That the property was damaged to the extent of at least $500 but less than $25,000; and 5. That this act occurred on or about the 29th day of July, 2001 in Lyon County, Kansas. These instructions were given in accord with the pattern instructions. Read together, they fairly and accurately state the law, and there was no possibility that this jury could have been misled. The only definition of criminal damage to property given to the jury was the definition of felony criminal damage to property. A jury cannot be presumed to have legal knowledge outside the statements of law in the instructions. This jury was plainly instructed that Dixon was guilty of burglary if he entered the apartment with the intent to commit criminal damage to property as defined. The burglary instruction referred the jury to the instruction setting out the elements of felony criminal damage to property, including the necessary value of the property. The jury unanimously found Dixon guilty of felony criminal damage to property, and its special verdict form indicated that it found the property damaged was valued at least $500 but less than $25,000. A further refinement of the instructions or the verdict form was not necessary to protect Dixon's rights.