Court Opinion

ID: 9600096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:24:17.816652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:50.337379
License: Public Domain

Allegrucci, J.,
dissenting: Although I agree with the majority that K.S.A. 22-3420(3) places a mandatory duty upon the trial court to respond to the jury’s request, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that
“[t]he time-honored rule that an issue not presented to the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal, State v. Ji, 251 Kan. 3, 17, 832 P.2d 1176 (1992), also applies to jury requests under K.S.A. 22-3420(3). As the State points out, a timely objection is necessary to give the trial court the opportunity to correct any alleged trial errors. See State v. Wolfe, 194 Kan. 697, 699, 401 P.2d 917 (1965). Clearly, the defendant had the opportunity to object and to inform fire trial court of his dissatisfaction with the ruling while the court still had a chance to correct any error. By failing to object, the defendant waived his right to raise the issue on appeal.”
The defendant should not be precluded from raising the issue on appeal for two reasons. The response by the court to the jury’s request was in the nature of supplemental instructions given during jury deliberations and, as such, K.S.A. 22-3414(3) applies. See State v. Ruebke, 240 Kan. 493, 731 P.2d 842, cert. denied 483 U.S. 1024 (1987). K.S.A. 22-3414(3) provides that the clearly erroneous standard applies on appeal if the defendant fails to object to the instruction at trial.
In addition, the trial court’s duty to “respond in some meaningful manner” under K.S.A. 22-3420(3) is analogous to the court’s duty to instruct on lesser included offenses under K.S.A. 21-3107(3). Under both statutes, the legislature has placed an absolute duty with the trial court. The defendant need not request or object in order to preserve the issue on appeal when the trial court fails to instruct on a lesser included offense. Such failure by the trial court is reversible error. In my opinion, so should it be when the trial court refuses or fails to respond to the jury’s request under K.S.A. 22-3420(3).
*93I would reverse the defendant’s conviction and remand for new trial.
Lockett, J., joins the foregoing dissent.