and the police that he had not taken anything from the store. The circumstances and behaviors leading up to Acevedo’s arrest hardly lend themselves to an innocent construction. We cannot conclude that the instruction given could have caused any confusion in the minds of the jurors. Accordingly, we find that there is no reasonable probability that the district court’s refusal to add the word knowingly to the jury instruction affected the trial’s outcome. In sum, although it may not be error based upon the facts of a case to insert the term knowingly in front of the phrase without authority in the PIK instruction for aggravated burglary, the failure to do so does not render the PIK instruction erroneous as a matter of law. See State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124, 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (<HOLDING>). Under the facts of this case, any error in
holding no error in rejecting the appellants proffered instruction even though that statement was based on language from case law when the amci instruction was a proper statement of the law holding that it was not error for the court to give a substantive new instruction to the jury after deliberations began where the instruction was given in court with the defendant and his counsel present holding that issue of inadequate jury instruction was waived because the instruction given was the one expressly requested by defense counsel holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given holding that even though the reasonable doubt instruction given in the case was not the preferred instruction it was not a misstatement of the law and therefore was legally appropriate