Court Opinion

ID: 9791580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:13:52.92231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:36.947521
License: Public Domain

O’CONNELL, C. J.,
dissenting.
The rule stated by the majority has been adopted by almost all of the courts in the United States, including Oregon.① A contrary view is expressed in Brown v. State, 206 So2d 377, 382 (Fla 1968), where the Florida court interpreted its statute② to require *159the court to instruct on the lesser-included offense “even though the proofs might satisfy the trial judge that the more serious offense was committed.”
The majority view is predicated on the idea that in its role as finder of fact the jury has the duty to act rationally on the evidence presented. If a rational examination of the evidence points either to the defendant’s guilt of the crime charged or else his innocence, an instruction on a lesser-included offense is seen as an improper invitation to the jury to engage in conjecture or compromise. The majority rule is best supported by those cases in which the defendant’s entire defense is based on an alibi, a plea of insanity, or the statute of limitations. In these circumstances, if the state’s evidence unequivocally establishes the defendant’s commission of the crime charged, it is felt that although the jury might nevertheless choose to acquit the defendant, it could not rationally find him guilty of any crime other than that charged, since there would be no reasonable ground for the jury to find that some but not all of the elements of the crime charged had been proved.③ Furthermore, from the standpoint of the prosecution, there is also the danger that if the instruction on a lesser-included offense is given in this situation, the jury, in order to ameliorate the punishment, will bring in a verdict of guilty on a lesser-included offense when the evidence would support a conviction of the greater offense. This, it has been noted, constitutes an invasion of the trial court’s function ni fixing the punishment in criminal cases.
*160It can also be argued as a matter of pure theory that the defendant, as opposed to the state, has no interest and consequently no right to demand a lesser-included offense instruction or to complain if a requested instruction is not given. Thus, it is argued that if the state has failed to establish an essential element of the crime charged, the defendant is entitled to be acquitted and has no interest in providing the jury with alternate grounds for conviction. If, on the other hand, the jury convicts the defendant of the offense charged, it must have found that the state had established each essential element of the greater crime, so that its decision would not have been affected by an instruction on a lesser-included offense.
The weakness of this argument is that it fails to account for the danger that a jury, certain that the defendant is guilty of some sort of criminal conduct but uncertain about the precise crime charged, may elect to bring in a verdict of guilty on that crime rather than to grant the defendant outright acquittal.
Further militating against the view restricting the circumstances in which a lesser-included offense instruction should be given is the fundamental proposition that the jury, as the trier of fact, is entitled to accept in part and reject in part the state’s evidence. Starting from this premise, virtually all cases would permit a finding of a lesser-included offense, including those cases such as the example above in which the only defense is insanity, alibi, or the statute of limitations, and thus justify an instruction on lesser-included offenses in every case.
In light of these competing policies and interests, it has been suggested that the majority rule constitutes *161a fair compromise. However, this does not take into account other factors relating to efficiency in judicial administration.
The majority rule requires the trial judge (and eventually the appellate courts) to determine in each ease whether the evidence would permit the jury to conclude reasonably that some but not all of the elements of the crime charged had been proved. Where the proof of the elements of the crime rests upon objective data (for example, whether a tax return accurately reflects the accused’s income as established by business records), the court’s task of determining whether there is room for the jury to pick and choose among these elements and thus reasonably find the commission of a lesser-included offense may be relatively easy in most cases. Even in such cases, frequently the credibility of the witnesses must be taken into account in deciding whether the jury could reasonably find that less than all of the elements of the crime charged had been made out. Where the severity of the offense depends upon subjective matters, such as the intent with which the act was committed, the difficulties are accentuated because the court will frequently have little but intuition to employ in deciding whether the jury would have to accept or reject all of the elements of the crime charged.④
*162We must ask, then, whether the difficulties and the judicial time involved in making the decision to grant or refuse requested instructions under the majority rule is not too high a price to pay in the effort to achieve a balance of the interests of the accused and the state. The Florida rule under which the accused is entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction, without introducing independent evidence tending to prove the lesser crime, operates to eliminate a time consuming decision point. Moreover, it reduces the possibility that the jury will convict the accused of the crime charged without evidence to support the conviction simply to punish him for some wrongdoing rather than acquit him.
From the prosecution’s standpoint, the Florida rule may serve to avoid certain problems arising out of multiple prosecutions. The reason underlying the majority rule would seem to apply equally in the case where the state requests an instruction on a lesser-included offense. If the jury were to bring back a verdict of acquittal on the crime charged, the state would then be faced with the defense of double jeopardy if a lesser-included offense was thereafter charged. This consideration was deemed important in Brown v. State, 206 So2d 377, 382-83, where the Florida Supreme Court *163expressed the view that its rule “comports with logic, within the confines of onr adversary system, because it enables the state to have adjudicated in one trial all aspects of a criminal charge arising out of one transaction,” and that it also “protects a defendant against a ‘splitting of accusations’ with resultant multitudinous prosecutions and trials.”
In my opinion, the possible disadvantages of the Florida rule do not justify the retention of the majority rule. With respect to the argument that the Florida rule permits the jury to usurp a part of the sentencing function of the court, I would say only that although criminal conduct is classified under the statutes into rigid categories, the degree of the defendant’s culpability in the commission of a particular crime may vary from case to case so that criminal conduct in reality falls along a scale of infinite gradations, and thus the line between the principal offense and the lesser-included offense is not sharply drawn. I think that it is appropriate for the jury to determine the offense consistent -with the degree of culpability as it sees fit.
I do not anticipate the adoption of the minority rule would materially increase the burden of the trial court in instructing the jury in criminal cases. In most cases the accused would not wish to have the jury instructed on a variety of lesser-included offenses, because by so doing the accused would provide the jury with a longer list of crimes upon which a verdict of guilty could be based.
For the foregoing reasons, I would adopt the *164Florida rule and repudiate our previous position to the contrary.⑤

 See generally, Annotation: Effect of Failure or Refusal of Court, in Robbery Prosecution, to Instruct on Assault and Battery, 58 ALR2d 808; State v. Nodine, 198 Or 679, 259 P2d 1056 (1953); State v. Wilson, 182 Or 681, 189 P2d 403 (1948); State v. Coffman, 171 Or 166, 136 P2d 687 (1943); State v. Stoneberg, — Or App —, 517 P2d 333 (1973); State v. Atkins, 14 Or App 603, 513 P2d 1191 (1973); State v. Boucher, 13 Or App 339, 509 P2d 1228 (1973); State v. Blocher, 10 Or App 357, 499 P2d 1346 (1972).

 “Conviction of attempt; conviction of included offense. Upon an indictment or information for any offense the jurors may convict the defendant of an attempt to commit such offense, if such attempt is an offense, or convict him of any offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. The court shall charge the jury in this regard.” Fla. Stat. § 919.16 (1965), F.S.A.

 Note, however, that this view ascribes a significance to a verdict of not guilty inconsistent with the normal instructions given to the jury that it is to return a verdict of guilty only if it believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the state has proved each element of the offense charged.

 Contrary to the fundamental assumption of the majority view, the jury might rationally believe part and reject part of the prosecution’s evidence without engaging in either conjecture or compromise. For example, the state may show all the elements of an offense but that of intent through uncontroverted direct evidence, but present only the testimony of an unbelievable witness on the latter question. In such a case it would be perfectly rational for the jury to disbelieve such a witness and thus find the defendant guilty of a lesser-included offense with*162out the aid of any evidence from the defendant. See Note, 57 NW ULRev 65, 66-68 (1962).
The majority rule apparently requires some counter evidence from the defendant to justify the lesser-included offense instruction. On questions of mens rea the most likely source of such evidence is the testimony of the defendant himself. Any defendant with a criminal record would thus he forced to choose between foregoing the desired instruction and placing his record before the jury. The result seems inconsistent with the defendant’s right to stand mute, requiring the state to prove each element of the offense.

 State v. Nodine, 198 Or 679, 259 P2d 1056 (1953); State v. Wilson, 182 Or 681, 189 P2d 403 (1948).