Opinion ID: 429672
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the lesser included offense issue

Text: 22 While it is true that no instruction was given regarding lesser included offenses, this was due to the acquiescence of Look's counsel who said to the court, I would be willing to state on the record, your Honor, that this case could go to the jury on the question of murder only. Look argues that the subsequent case of Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980), reveals a constitutional right to a lesser included offense instruction on the facts of this case. We disagree. At issue in Beck was an Alabama statute which specifically prohibited a judge from giving the jury the option of convicting a defendant of a lesser included offense in capital cases. In this case no statute prevented the judge from giving a lesser included offense instruction, and there is nothing to indicate that the judge would have refused to give such an instruction if defendant had wanted. In Beck the Supreme Court merely held that Alabama could not constitutionally prevent a judge from charging a jury concerning a lesser included offense; Beck does not prevent a defendant from foregoing that option for himself as Look did in this case. Defense counsel may well have felt that, on the evidence, the jury would be more likely to convict on manslaughter than to acquit, but if given a choice only between a murder conviction and acquittal that an acquittal was more likely. Nothing in Beck or elsewhere prevents a defendant from making such a strategic choice. Having gambled and lost Look may not now complain. 23 Denial of petitioner's application for habeas corpus is affirmed.