Opinion ID: 2570421
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: refusal to testify instruction

Text: Mitchell next argues that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that it should not consider the fact Mitchell did not testify in arriving at its verdict. Mitchell's argument is that the instruction should have used must not instead of should not. When reviewing challenges to jury instructions, we are required to consider all the instructions together, read as a whole, and not to isolate any one instruction. If the instructions properly and fairly state the law as applied to the facts of the case, and a jury could not reasonably have been misled by them, the instructions do not constitute reversible error even if they are in some way erroneous. State v. Mims, 264 Kan. 506, 514, 956 P.2d 1337 (1998). PIK Crim.3d 52.13 addresses a defendant's election not to testify and states that the jury must not consider the fact that the defendant did not testify in arriving at your verdict. (Emphasis added.) Mitchell requested that the court use an instruction which mirrored PIK Crim.3d 52.13. Instead, the court instructed the jury that they should not consider the fact that the defendant did not testify in arriving at your verdict. (Emphasis added.) Although Mitchell did not expressly object to the use of the should not jury instruction, he did offer an alternate and competing jury instruction using the must not language. Mitchell's request that the court use his jury instruction containing the must not language sufficed as an objection. In State v. Butler, 257 Kan. 1043, 1066, 897 P.2d 1007 (1995), modified on other grounds 257 Kan. 1110, 916 P.2d 1 (1996), we discussed the use of PIK instructions by a trial court and stated: `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.' (Quoting State v. Dunn, 249 Kan. 488, 492-93, 820 P.2d 412 [1991].) Mitchell argues that because the PIK instruction was amended following State v. Pennington, 254 Kan. 757, 869 P.2d 624 (1994), to read must not instead of should not, the use of the instruction violated what is now a well-established principle of the jury instruction. Failure to use the exact language found in the PIK instruction is not fatal and does not automatically require reversal. Prejudice must still be shown. This court has previously held that the use of should not language in a jury instruction concerning the defendant's election not to testify is not prejudicial and does not require reversal. In State v. Owens, 248 Kan. 273, 807 P.2d 101 (1991), the defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred when it gave an instruction with the should not language and that it should have given an instruction using must not. This court held that the use of should not was not prejudicial to the defendant and stated: Although should is not as strong as must, the jury was instructed not to consider the fact that Owens did not testify. Before the numbered instructions were read, the jury was instructed to consider and follow the instructions. Owens has shown no prejudicial error. 248 Kan. at 284. In Pennington, this court again considered the use of should not language in a jury instruction concerning the defendant's failure to testify. We stated: The defendant next claims that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it must not draw inferences from the defendant's failure to testify. The court instructed the jury in accordance with PIK Crim.3d 52.13 [which at the time read]: `You should not consider the fact that the defendant did not testify in arriving at your verdict.' The defendant requested that `should' be replaced by `must'; the trial court declined the requested modification. In support of his contention that the trial court's failure to give the requested instruction was reversible error, the defendant cites Bruno v. United States, 308 U.S. 287, 84 L. Ed. 257, 60 S. Ct. 198 (1939), for the proposition that a defendant has a right to have the jury instructed that it must not consider a defendant's failure to testify. Bruno does not dictate such a result.... Bruno does not require the mandatory `shall' language, but did require that the substance of the defendant's requested instruction should have been given. .... We hold that PIK Crim.3d 52.13 provides sufficient direction for the jury in its consideration of the defendant's failure to testify, that it `properly and fairly state[s] the law as applied to the facts in the case,' and that the jury could not reasonably have been misled by the instructions. [Citation omitted.] We further hold that the better practice would be for the trial judge in the context of this instruction to use the stronger term `must' instead of the term `should.' However, we conclude that no prejudicial error occurred in the failure to give the instruction requested by the defendant. 254 Kan. at 762-64. Although there was no reason for the trial court to use the instruction containing the words should not when the PIK instruction used must not, the failure to follow the PIK instruction language in this particular case was not prejudicial to Mitchell and does not require reversal. The jury was instructed that it was not to consider the fact that Mitchell did not testify, and the use of the word should instead of the word must did not significantly alter the meaning of the instruction so as to prejudice Mitchell. We highly encourage courts to follow the language found in the PIK instructions unless the facts of the case dictate otherwise. The uniform use of PIK instruction language is a highly desirable goal, a goal which takes very little effort to effectuate. Use of the PIK instruction language helps to protect the rights of criminal defendants in our courts and significantly reduces the number of criminal appeals and issues raised in appeals of criminal cases. We hold that the trial court did not commit reversible error in this case in using the instruction containing the should not language in the jury instruction concerning Mitchell's right to refuse to testify as there is no real possibility that the jury would have rendered a different verdict if the instruction using the must not language had been used.