Opinion ID: 2179259
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: provocation and sudden quarrel

Text: Mowell argues the trial court erred by failing to define the term sudden quarrel, which he contends prevented the jury from adequately considering an essential issue presented by the evidence. Jury instruction No. 4, the step instruction, provided the analytical framework for the jury to decide counts I, II, and III, including the elements of the charged crimes. With respect to count I, the jury was instructed that it could return one of four possible verdicts: (1) guilty of murder in the first degree, (2) guilty of murder in the second degree, (3) guilty of manslaughter, or (4) not guilty. Relevant here, the pertinent portions of instruction No. 4 gave the following charge: The material elements that the [S]tate must prove ... in order to convict the Defendant of [second degree] murder... are: 1. That the Defendant caused the death of Jeremy Cade; and 2. That the Defendant did so intentionally but without premeditation; and... .... 4[.] That he did not do so in self-defense. .... The material elements that the [S]tate must prove ... in order to convict the Defendant of manslaughter are: 1. That the Defendant killed Jeremy Cade; and 2. That the Defendant did so without malice, either upon a sudden quarrel, or unintentionally while in the commission of an unlawful act; and ... .... 4. That he did not do so in self-defense. According to Mowell, trial courts should be required to define the term sudden quarrel because it is not only an essential element of manslaughter, but understanding the term sudden quarrel is an essential component of allowing the jury to effectively consider whether Mowell had the requisite intent to commit murder. More specifically, Mowell argues that a proper understanding of the term sudden quarrel at an early stage of the step instruction would have led the jury to find a sudden quarrel erupted between Mowell and Cade prior to the shooting. In turn, this could have negated Mowell's intent to kill Cade and caused the jury to find Mowell guilty of manslaughter instead of murder. Whether jury instructions given by a trial court are correct is a question of law. State v. Bao, 263 Neb. 439, 640 N.W.2d 405 (2002). Regarding questions of law, an appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of determinations reached by the trial court. State v. Mata, 266 Neb. 668, 668 N.W.2d 448 (2003). In an appeal based on the claim of an erroneous instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejudicial to or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant. State v. Derry, 248 Neb. 260, 534 N.W.2d 302 (1995). We first note that Mowell's assignment of error is not appropriate for appellate review because he failed to object to the portion of the jury instruction he now criticizes. At the instruction conference, Mowell objected to certain aspects of instruction No. 4, but he did not specifically object to the trial court's failure to define sudden quarrel, or to its absence in instruction No. 7, which provided definitions to the terms used throughout the instructions. Failure to object to a jury instruction after it has been submitted to counsel for review precludes raising an objection on appeal absent plain error indicative of a probable miscarriage of justice. State v. Haltom, 264 Neb. 976, 653 N.W.2d 232 (2002). The purpose of the instruction conference is to give the trial court an opportunity to correct any errors made by it. Id. Consequently, a party who does not request a desired jury instruction cannot complain on appeal about incomplete instructions. State v. Brown, 258 Neb. 330, 603 N.W.2d 419 (1999). Stated otherwise, and relevant here: `[I]t is the duty of the trial court, without any request to do so, to instruct the jury on the issues presented by the pleadings and supported by the evidence.... `In applying that principle we have established that the failure to object to instructions after they have been submitted to counsel for review or to offer more specific instructions if counsel feels the court-tendered instructions are not sufficiently specific will preclude raising an objection on appeal, unless there is a plain error indicative of a probable miscarriage of justice.' State v. Myers, 258 Neb. 300, 314, 603 N.W.2d 378, 390 (1999) (quoting Ellis & Guy Advg. v. Cohen, 219 Neb. 340, 363 N.W.2d 180 (1985)). Accord McCauley v. Briggs, 218 Neb. 403, 355 N.W.2d 508 (1984). Thus, in order to preserve the alleged error, Mowell was required to specifically object to that error. See State v. Davlin, 263 Neb. 283, 639 N.W.2d 631 (2002) (objection, based on specific ground and properly overruled, does not preserve appellate review on any other ground). However, as noted, an appellate court always reserves the right to note plain error which was not complained of at trial. Id. We have defined plain error as error of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process. State v. Greer, 257 Neb. 208, 215, 596 N.W.2d 296, 302 (1999). Here, there was no miscarriage of justice because the jury found Mowell guilty of second degree murder under a properly administered step instruction. Under the step instruction, the jury was instructed to separately consider, in the following order, the crimes of first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter. The jury was adequately instructed on the element of intent with respect to the crime of second degree murder such that any alleged failure to further define the term sudden quarrel at an earlier stage of the step instruction would not constitute plain error under these circumstances. We have repeatedly approved of step instructions that require consideration of the most serious crime charged before the consideration of lesser-included offenses. See, generally, State v. Bao, 263 Neb. 439, 640 N.W.2d 405 (2002); Myers, supra; State v. Lotter, 255 Neb. 456, 586 N.W.2d 591 (1998); State v. Derry, 248 Neb. 260, 534 N.W.2d 302 (1995). The jury was so charged under a properly administered step instruction in the instant case, and we refuse to invoke the plain error doctrine to give Mowell's first assignment of error any further consideration. Likewise, Mowell's second assignment of error with respect to the denial of his motion for new trial, which is predicated on the court's failure to define the term sudden quarrel, is without merit.