Koppersmith v. State
1999 WL 463469, 742 So. 2d 206 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense when there is any evidence, however weak or doubtful, that provides a reasonable theory to support the lesser charge.
Facts:
- Gregory Koppersmith and his wife, Cynthia, were arguing in the yard of their home.
- Koppersmith physically prevented Cynthia from entering the house to end the argument.
- During the physical confrontation on the porch, Cynthia bit Koppersmith's arm while he was restraining her from behind.
- In reaction to the bite, Koppersmith 'slung' Cynthia off of him, causing her to fall from the porch into the yard.
- Cynthia's head struck a brick that was in the grass, causing a fatal skull fracture.
- Koppersmith testified that his action was a reflexive reaction, that he did not intend to harm his wife, and that he was unaware there were bricks in the yard.
Procedural Posture:
- Gregory Koppersmith was indicted for murder in an Alabama state trial court.
- At trial, Koppersmith requested a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of criminally negligent homicide.
- The trial court denied the request but instructed the jury on the offense of reckless manslaughter.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Koppersmith of reckless manslaughter.
- Koppersmith, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err by refusing to instruct a jury on the lesser-included offense of criminally negligent homicide when the defendant testifies that he was unaware of the risk of death created by his actions?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The trial court erred because a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense is required whenever there is a reasonable theory from the evidence to support it. The key distinction between reckless manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide is the defendant's mental state: recklessness requires conscious awareness and disregard of a substantial risk, while criminal negligence involves a failure to perceive that risk. Koppersmith testified that he acted reflexively, did not know there were bricks in the yard, and was not aware of the risk his actions might cause. This testimony, however weak or doubtful in credibility, presented a reasonable theory that he failed to perceive the risk rather than consciously disregarding it. Therefore, the jury should have been given the option to consider criminally negligent homicide.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the procedural right of a defendant to have the jury consider all plausible charges supported by the evidence, even if that evidence is minimal. It highlights the critical distinction between the mental states of recklessness (awareness of risk) and negligence (failure to perceive risk) in homicide cases. The ruling establishes that a defendant's own testimony regarding their lack of awareness of a risk can be sufficient to compel a jury instruction on criminally negligent homicide, thereby ensuring the jury, not the judge, resolves factual disputes about the defendant's state of mind.
