Court Opinion

ID: 9777362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:08:07.230179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:52.931176
License: Public Domain

BARDGETT, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the principal opinion but desire to express myself regarding MAI-CR2d 32.10and 32.16 with respect to how some of the MAI-CRs must be used. I will use 32.10as illustrative of the point I desire to make, as Paragraph Second of 32.10 and 32.16 with respect to describing what is to be included are the same.
MAI 32.10 of MAI-CR2d, Vol. II, pp. 32-13 and 32-14 reads:
32.10Controlled Subtances: Schedule I or II Controlled Substances or Certain Narcotic Drugs — Obtaining or Attempting to Obtain by Fraud
(As to Count_, if) (If) you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that (on) (on or about) [date] in the (City) (County) of_, State of Missouri, the defendant (obtained) (attempted to obtain) (procured the administration of) (attempted to procure the administration of) [name of Schedule I or II controlled substance; or name of preparation containing coca leaves referred to in Section 195.080] (from) (by) [name of person ], and
Second, that defendant did so by [concise statement of the facts constituting the means by which defendant violated Section 195.170.1, RSMo, and using more than one paragraph designated “Third,” “Fourth,” etc., if necessary, each paragraph concluding with a comma and the word “and”],
*330then you will find the defendant guilty (under Count _) of (obtaining) (attempting to obtain) (procuring the administration of) (attempting to procure the administration of) [name of the substance or preparation ] by (fraud) (forgery) (deception).
However, if you do not find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of that offense.
If you do find the defendant guilty (under Count _) of the offense submitted in this instruction, you will assess and declare his punishment:
1. At imprisonment by the division of corrections for a term fixed by you, but not more than twenty years, or
2. At confinement in the county jail for a term fixed by you, but not less than six months nor more than one year.
In the MAI Civil book, 3d ed., at XCI, the caution appears, “KNOW THE APPLICABLE SUBSTANTIVE LAW”. The same admonition is applicable to the MAI-CR instructions. Paragraph Second of MAI-CR2d 32.10, supra, describes what the lawyer preparing the instruction for use or the court ought to include as paragraph second and third. It does not exclude a finding of guilty knowledge, but rather, in my opinion, permits the inclusion of such a finding where required by the applicable substantive law. The choice of words used by the person who drew up instruction No. 7, paragraph second, was substantively incorrect as decided in the principal opinion. But, had the person who drew instruction 7 drawn it in accordance with the substantive law, it would have submitted a finding that appellant knew the name and prescriptions to be false when he used them to obtain the drugs. This could have been submitted within the parameters of the instruction appearing in the example by adding a paragraph third whieh said:
Third, that defendant then and there knew the name and prescriptions were false,
or by having added to paragraph second the phrase “then and there knowing the said name and prescriptions to be false”, so that paragraph second would read:
Second, that defendant did so by the use of a false name and prescriptions then and there knowing the said name and prescriptions to be false.
or some other phrase clearly requiring that the jury find as a prerequisite to a guilty verdict, the necessary guilty knowledge. In other words, the instructions in MAI-CR are suggested for general use but the lawyers have to know the specific substantive law so as to use the instructions in a specific case. It is not that MAI-CR2d 32.10 or 32.16 are erroneous that requires a reversal and remand of this case, but rather the error is in the failure to require a finding in the instruction that was actually given to the jury of guilty knowledge in accordance with substantive law. As pointed out in the principal opinion, the legislature changes the law from time to time, and this happens more frequently in the criminal law than in the civil law.
Many of the MAI-CRs were drawn by the Committee on Pattern Criminal Charges and Instructions so as to accommodate to some changes and to differing essential elements by allowing the blanks to be filled in with appropriate findings as required by substantive law. I believe MAI-CRs 32.10 and 32.16 are in this category and continue to be usable as guides to be adapted to the particular elements of the crime submitted.
I concur.