Opinion ID: 1711324
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 28

Heading: Diminished Capacity Instruction

Text: Roberts also claims that the trial court erred in refusing to submit a diminished capacity instruction. The trial court would not allow the submission of both the general converse instruction, MAI-CR3d 308.02, and the instruction regarding mental disease or defect negating a culpable mental state, MAI-CR3d 308.03. Faced with a choice, Roberts chose the former. Roberts believes he was entitled to both. Note on Use 8 of MAI 308.03 states that the use of that instruction does not prevent a defendant from also using a converse instruction based on MAI-CR 308.02. However, such converse may not include the mental element of the crime that is conversed in the instruction based on 308.03. In Roberts's case, both of the proffered instructions conversed the element of deliberation. Therefore, the Notes on Use advise that both instructions could not be given. The trial court did not err in refusing to submit both instructions. The point is denied.
Roberts's other claim of instructional error was not preserved for appellate review and does not facially present substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice resulted. Therefore, we decline to exercise our discretionary review under Rule 30.20.