Opinion ID: 2103389
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the burglary instruction given to the jury was erroneous

Text: Finally Appellant argues that the jury instruction given on the burglary charge was improper because it allowed the jury to convict him of that crime if they believed he either caused physical injury to the girls, a violation of KRS 511.020(1)(b), or threatened the girls with harm to their mother if they told anyone about what he did. KRS 511.020(1)(c). We address the issue because it may arise upon retrial. Appellant argues that the instruction as written presented alternate theories of guilt, violating his right to a unanimous verdict. A jury instruction which presents an alternative theory of guilt is proper and does not violate the requirement of unanimity found in Section 7 of the Kentucky Constitution, if every alternate theory contained in the instruction was reasonably supported by evidence presented at trial. Hayes v. Commonwealth, 625 S.W.2d 583, 584 (Ky.1981). While alternative theories of criminal liability may properly be combined in a single instruction, the instruction must accurately present the elements of each alternative theory. Guilt under KRS 511.020(1)(c) requires that one uses or threatens the use of a dangerous instrument against any person who is not a participant in the crime. The corresponding instruction given by the trial court stated that Appellant could be found guilty of first degree burglary if, among the other elements, he threatened to kill the victim's mother, [G.W.]. It is clear that the instruction does not accurately reflect the requirement of the statute. If upon retrial, the Commonwealth pursues a conviction on the alternate theories of liability under KRS 511.020(1)(b) and (1)(c), and appropriate evidence is offered to support same, the instruction must correspond to the statutory element by requiring the jury to find, not simply a threat to kill another, but a threat to use a deadly weapon against another person.