Opinion ID: 2499407
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Content of Limiting Instruction on Gang Affiliation Evidence

Text: [A]bsent a request for a limiting instruction concerning gang evidence and absent any objection for the failure to give a limiting instruction on gang evidence, a trial court is not obligated to give such an instruction. Conway, 284 Kan. at 50, 159 P.3d 917. If a party objects to an instruction at trial, `the instruction will be examined on appeal to determine if it properly and fairly states the law as applied to the facts of the case and could not have reasonably misled the jury. In making this determination an appellate court is required to consider the instructions as a whole and not isolate any one instruction.' State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 1059, 221 P.3d 525 (2009). State v. Bailey, 292 Kan. 449, 455, 255 P.3d 19 (2011). Peppers objected to the limiting instruction on gang evidence because of its language permitting consideration for the purpose of determining if it tends to show part of the events surrounding the commission of the crime. Peppers repeats his argument on appeal that this is essentially the definition of `res gestae' and, therefore, the instruction did not `properly and fairly' state the law. Peppers also argues that because the phrase `to show part of the events surrounding the commission of the crime' is incredibly broad and extremely vague, the instruction likely misled the jury. As addressed in the preceding section, Peppers' res gestae objection is without merit. Although the instruction's wording could have been smoother, it was not incorrect or misleading. We applaud the district judge's effort to contain undue prejudice and see no error when the instruction is read in the context of this case.