Opinion ID: 2466689
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Definition of Attempt

Text: As requested in Bailey's proposed jury instructions, the second element of the felony-murder instruction given to the jury stated: That such killing was done while in the commission of or attempting to commit aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary or criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied building. Neither Bailey's proposed instructions nor the instructions given to the jury included a definition of attempt. Bailey now contends that the felony-murder instruction was clearly erroneous due to this omission. Bailey did not object on these grounds. When defendant's requested instruction is given to the jury, the defendant cannot complain the requested instruction was error on appeal. State v. Patchett, 229 Kan. 163, Syl. ¶ 3, 621 P.2d 1011 (1981). Further, the parties agree that there was no evidence at trial that the underlying crimes were attempted rather than completed and our review of the record leads to the same conclusion. In fact, the jury convicted Bailey of all three underlying felonies. Under these facts, the language or attempting to commit in the complaint and jury instruction was merely surplusage because there was no evidence that the underlying crimes were attempted rather than completed crimes. See State v. McCoy, 34 Kan.App.2d 185, 191, 116 P.3d 48 (2005) (finding no reversible error when the trial court erroneously included an element of obstruction of legal process in an instruction for obstruction of legal duty when the instruction as a whole fairly instructed the jury). Although a proper jury instruction including this language would also define attempt, the inclusion of superfluous language in this instruction was harmless. Removing the extraneous language or attempting to commit in the jury instruction on felony murder would not have changed the outcome in this case. No rational jury could have found attempt under these facts.