Opinion ID: 2518340
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: did the jury instruction on felony murder incorrectly include defendant's fleeing from an attempted felony?

Text: Griffin complains of the instructions on the alternatives for murder in the first degree. There was no objection to the instructions at trial. The court reviews instructions by a clearly erroneous standard where there was no objection to the instructions at trial. Instructions are clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court is firmly convinced there is a real possibility that the jury would have rendered a different verdict if the error had not occurred. State v. Davis, 275 Kan. 107, 115, 61 P.3d 701 (2003). The instructions at issue stated in part: In this case, the State has charged Mr. Griffin in Count 1 [and Count 2] with the offense of murder of Dana Hudson [and Gabriel Hudson] in the first degree and has introduced evidence on two alternate theories of proving this crime. The State may prove murder in the first degree by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Griffin killed Dana Hudson [and Gabriel Hudson] and that such killing was done while in the commission of, attempting to commit, in flight from committing or attempting to commit aggravated arson or in the alternative by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Griffin killed Dana Hudson [and Gabriel Hudson] and that such killing was done while in the commission of, attempting to commit, or in flight from committing or attempting to commit burglary, as set out in instruction number 26. (The complained-of phrase is underlined.) On appeal, Griffin argues that because K.S.A. 21-3401(b) does not include flight from attempting to commit an inherently dangerous felony, the instruction is an incorrect statement of the law. The instruction may be flawed but not in the way Griffin points out. Where the instruction purported to present the alternative theories of first-degree murder, it actually repeated the felony-murder theory twice and omitted the premeditated-murder theory. The second quoted paragraph of the instruction should have followed the pattern instruction, which states: The State may prove murder in the first degree by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed ____ and that such killing was done while (in the commission of) (attempting to commit) (in flight from [committing] [attempting to commit]) ____________ or in the alternative by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed ________________ intentionally and with premeditation, as fully set out in these instructions. PIK Crim. 3d 56.02-A. As can be seen in this excerpt from the pattern instruction, flight from attempting to commit an inherently dangerous felony is included. The Pattern Instructions for Kansas were developed by a knowledgeable committee to bring accuracy, clarity, and uniformity to jury instructions, and while they are not required, they are strongly recommended for use by Kansas trial courts. State v. Beck, 32 Kan. App. 2d 784, 786, 88 P.3d 1233 (2004). Although it might have been better practice for the trial judge to have selected only the parenthetical phrases that fit the facts of this case, in which event the challenged phrase would not have been included in the jury instruction, the phrase is not a misstatement of the law.