When Should A Pattern (PIK) Jury Instruction Be Used in Court?
Pattern jury instructions, often referred to as PIK (Pattern Instructions for Kansas), are standard instructions developed to provide clear and consistent guidelines for juries. While these instructions are not mandatory, they are highly recommended to ensure accuracy and uniformity in explaining the law to juries. However, situations can arise where modifications to PIK instructions may be necessary based on specific case facts. The case State v. Gallegos discusses the use of PIK instructions, clarifying when they should be relied upon and under what circumstances modifications may be appropriate.
Case Overview: State v. Gallegos, 286 Kan. 869 (2008)
In State v. Gallegos, the Kansas Supreme Court examined whether the district court erred in its jury instruction wording. The instruction in question told the jury that it must presume the defendant was not guilty “until” it was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt. The defendant argued that the term "until" implied an expectation of guilt, potentially undermining the presumption of innocence. This case provides guidance on when PIK instructions should be used, and under what circumstances changes to these instructions may be considered.
Key Issue: When Should Pattern (PIK) Jury Instructions Be Used?
The central question in Gallegos was whether the trial court’s choice of jury instruction language affected the fairness of the trial. Specifically, the court addressed when PIK instructions should be the default choice and when modifications are warranted.
Facts of the Case
The defendant in this case argued that the term “until” in the jury instruction implied an eventual finding of guilt, as it could suggest that the jury was expected to convict him after examining the evidence. The specific instruction read, “The State has the burden to prove the defendant is guilty. The defendant is not required to prove he is not guilty. You must presume that he is not guilty until you are convinced from the evidence that he is guilty.” This instruction was based on a prior version of the PIK instruction that had since been updated to remove the term “until.”
The court evaluated whether this language constituted a serious enough error to warrant a new trial and addressed the broader question of whether PIK instructions should be used without modifications unless absolutely necessary.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that while the language was less than ideal, it did not constitute reversible error for several reasons:
Precedent of the Instruction’s Use: The court had previously reviewed and upheld similar instructions, finding that they accurately stated the law when read in their entirety. The court noted that although the wording was not perfect, it did not undermine the presumption of innocence in a way that would have influenced the jury’s verdict.
Defendant’s Role in Proposing the Instruction: The court observed that the defendant himself had requested the specific instruction using the term “until.” In Kansas, a party who proposes an instruction cannot later argue it was erroneous if the court adopts that exact language. Since the defense initially proposed the language, the court held that any potential prejudice was outweighed by the defendant’s role in shaping the instruction.
Current Version of PIK: The court noted that the current version of the PIK instruction no longer included the “until” language. Had the defense used the updated version, the issue likely would not have arisen. This emphasized the importance of using the latest version of PIK instructions, as they are designed to reflect the most accurate and clear articulation of the law.
Strong Recommendation for PIK Instructions: The court highlighted that while PIK instructions are not mandatory, they are strongly recommended because they are crafted by a knowledgeable committee with the goal of bringing “accuracy, clarity, and uniformity” to jury instructions. The court held that PIK instructions should generally be the starting point in crafting jury instructions and that deviations should only be made when absolutely necessary to address the specific facts of a case.
Modification Only When Necessary: While the court recognized that some cases may require tailored instructions, it stressed that changes to PIK instructions should be rare and made only to address unique circumstances that would otherwise mislead or confuse the jury. Courts are encouraged to rely on PIK language unless a compelling reason justifies modification.
Key Takeaways from State v. Gallegos
The Gallegos decision offers several key insights regarding the use of PIK instructions and the conditions under which they may be modified:
Reliance on PIK as the Default Standard: PIK instructions should be the first option when preparing jury instructions. Their consistency and clarity make them a reliable tool to guide juries accurately on the law.
Judicial Discretion for Modifications: While PIK instructions should generally be followed, courts may exercise discretion to modify them only when specific case facts make such modifications essential. Courts are advised to tread carefully, as changes may introduce confusion or legal ambiguities.
Importance of Using Current PIK Versions: Lawyers and courts should use the most updated PIK instructions to avoid potential issues stemming from outdated language. The most current version is designed to reflect recent case law, making it the best reference for accurate instruction language.
“Invited Error” Doctrine: Gallegos reinforces the principle that a defendant who proposes or agrees to an instruction cannot later challenge it on appeal if the court adopted the exact language. This doctrine discourages parties from requesting instructions that they might later claim were prejudicial, preserving the integrity of the judicial process.
Non-Mandatory but Strongly Recommended: PIK instructions, while not legally mandatory, are “strongly recommended” due to their clarity and accuracy. They have been vetted by a committee to ensure they meet the requirements of Kansas law, making them a highly reliable choice for guiding juries.
Implications for Legal Practice
The ruling in Gallegos has practical implications for both defense attorneys and prosecutors in Kansas. Legal practitioners are encouraged to start with the PIK instructions as a baseline, especially in routine cases where the instructions accurately reflect the elements of the offense. For attorneys considering modifications, it is essential to have a clear justification related to the specific facts of the case. Additionally, attorneys should be aware that proposing specific language could limit their ability to contest that language on appeal under the invited error doctrine.
Conclusion
State v. Gallegos establishes that PIK instructions should be the default choice for jury instructions in Kansas courts, due to their accuracy and uniformity. Modifications to these instructions are permitted only in rare cases where unique facts necessitate deviation from the standard language. This approach helps maintain clarity and consistency in jury instructions, safeguarding against unnecessary appeals and misunderstandings. Courts and attorneys alike benefit from adhering to PIK instructions, with modifications made only when absolutely necessary to prevent misinterpretation.