Opinion ID: 1172578
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The commission of the crime.

Text: /s/ David M. Garrison' In response the court submitted instruction 5a. It reads: The law in question does not require intent to do the prohibited act. It contemplates proof of possession and control which is more than an innocent handling of the pistol without intent to have, possess or control the same. The state contends that whatever error may have been committed, and it agreed on oral argument an instruction on intent should have been given, was cured by instruction 5a. The defendant replies: one, 5a was confusing and misleading with respect to intent, and two, the jury should be instructed before, not after closing arguments are made. The defendant maintains that the court's failure to give the substance of 5a prior to oral summations precluded him from making an effective argument in support of his theory of the case. In the context in which 5a was given and in view of its unfortunate timing, we believe the instruction would tend to be somewhat confusing to the jury, if not misleading. Moreover, defense counsel was deprived of a fair opportunity to discuss his client's theory of the case as measured by the applicable rule of law. We deem the lack of opportunity to be of particular importance in view of the demonstrative nature of the argument made by the state in its final summation. We are constrained to hold the court's initial error was not cured in view of the distinctive circumstances present in this case. A further allegation of error concerns the court's failure to instruct on circumstantial evidence (PIK Criminal 52.16), as requested by defendant. We find it unnecessary to rule on this point but call attention to our recent opinion in State v. Wilkins, 215 Kan. 145, 523 P.2d 728, where the subject is discussed. As to the constitutional point raised with respect to K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 21-4204, the defendant says in his brief: We do not perceive that the constitutional issues herein need be reached. We are content to leave it that way. The judgment of the court below is reversed with directions to grant the defendant a new trial in accordance with the views herein expressed.