Opinion ID: 2508696
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jury Instructions and Verdict Form

Text: Wilkerson next argues that Instruction No. 14 and other instructions and the verdict form were fundamentally unfair. Specifically, he claims Instruction No. 14's use of the phrase,  until you are convinced from the evidence that he is guilty, misled the jury into believing that they should expect to be convinced of the defendant's guilt. In Wilkerson's view, the word unless should have been substituted for the word until, because `until' implies an expectation of a future event or occurrence which shall happen. `Unless' implies a future event or occurrence which may happen. (Emphasis added.) In addition to making this definitional distinction, Wilkerson points to State v. Hundley, 236 Kan. 461, 693 P.2d 475 (1985), in which this court reversed a conviction and remanded a case for a new trial because the self-defense instruction had used the word immediate rather than imminent. We agree with Wilkerson that Instruction No. 14 and PIK Crim. 3d instruction 52.02, which it follows, would have been improved by the substitution of the word unless for the word until. However, we do not believe our agreement requires reversal. The whole of the instructions given in this case, when read together, accurately stated the law. The jury could not reasonably have been misled by them, and thus the instructions did not constitute reversible error even if they were in some way erroneous. State v. Peterson, 273 Kan. 217, 221, 42 P.3d 137 (2002); see also State v. Jones, No. 89,293, unpublished opinion filed Oct. 17, 2003, rev. denied 277 Kan. 926 (until rather than unless in jury instruction not reversible error when instructions, read as a whole, could not have misled jury on allocation of burden of proof). Wilkerson also challenges other jury instructions, claiming they dehumanized him because they referred to him as defendant rather than by given name. His challenge to the verdict form focuses on its listing of the guilty option before the not guilty option. PIK instructions do not require the use of a criminal defendant's name and use of PIK instructions generally is recommended. See Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 1035, 40 P.3d 139 (2001). In addition, this court has approved a similar verdict form. See State v. Wesson, 247 Kan. 639, 652, 802 P.2d 574 (1990), cert. denied 501 U.S. 1236 (1991) (where guilty blank preceded not guilty blank, no prejudice to accused). Wilkerson was not prejudiced by the instructions referring to him as defendant, nor by the order of the jury's options on the verdict form.