State v. Cannon
A-15-1186
| Neb. Ct. App. | Oct 25, 2016Background
- Colleen C. Cannon was charged with intentional (voluntary) manslaughter and use of a weapon to commit a felony for the April 5, 2014 death of Darryel Fields after a physical altercation during which Cannon was being choked.
- Cannon testified she stabbed Fields to get him off her because she could not breathe and feared for her life; an eyewitness (Carruth) did not observe the stabbing directly but saw Fields collapse with a chest wound.
- Jury was instructed on both intentional manslaughter (killing intentionally but without malice upon a sudden quarrel) and the definition of malice (intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse).
- During deliberations the jury asked whether "intentional manslaughter" required intent to kill or merely an intentional stabbing; the court consulted counsel and told the jury to refer to the instructions rather than give the clarifying instruction defense requested.
- Cannon was convicted on both counts, sentenced, and appealed arguing the court abused its discretion by not clarifying that intent to kill must be proved for intentional manslaughter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in responding to a jury question about intent for intentional manslaughter | Cannon: court should have instructed that State must prove intent to kill to convict of intentional manslaughter | State: the jury instructions already addressed the point; court properly referred jury to those instructions | Court: No abuse of discretion; referring jury to the instructions was proper because instructions covered the issue |
| Whether the jury instructions were inconsistent/confusing regarding intent and malice | Cannon: combination of element instruction and malice definition could mislead jury into thinking no intent to kill required | State: instructions followed NJI, statutory language, and case law—no inherent conflict | Court: Instructions were consistent with statute, NJI, and precedent; no error |
| Whether failure to object to original instructions bars appellate review | Cannon: (raised on appeal) court erred in response to jury question based on instruction ambiguity | State: Cannon did not object to original instructions at trial | Court: Cannon waived challenge to original instructions by failing to object at trial |
| Whether trial judge should have given a supplemental, clarifying instruction after jury question | Cannon: requested explicit clarifying instruction stating intent to kill must be proved | State: referring jury to instructions sufficed | Court: Trial judge properly exercised discretion by directing jury to the given instructions; supplemental instruction not required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Clinger, 292 Neb. 237 (discretion rests with trial court to answer jury questions during deliberations)
- State v. Erpelding, 292 Neb. 351 (failure to object to jury instructions precludes appellate challenge)
- State v. Neujahr, 248 Neb. 965 (referring jury to an instruction already given can properly answer a jury inquiry)
- State v. Lavalleur, 289 Neb. 102 (use NJI when applicable; court may follow statutory language in instructions)
- State v. Smith, 282 Neb. 720 (an intentional killing without malice upon sudden quarrel constitutes manslaughter)