The instruction given contained the elements of the offense, and a separate instruction containing a definition of the crime is not required. State v. Flowers, 630 S.W.2d 585, 586 (Mo.App. 1981); State v. Clark, 607 S.W.2d 817, 820 (Mo.App. 1980). See also State v. Brown, 607 S.W.2d 881, 888 (Mo.App. 1981) (holding that Note on Use 5 to MAI-CR2d 2.12 is applicable only when the defendant is being tried for an offense not originally contemplated).
The issue has been repeatedly decided against defendant's position. State v. McIlvoy, 629 S.W.2d 333, 337 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Colvin, 637 S.W.2d 388, 389 (Mo.App. 1982); State v. Flowers, 630 S.W.2d 585, 586 (Mo.App. 1981); State v. Simpson, 614 S.W.2d 31, 33 (Mo.App. 1981). Defendant's final allegation of instructional error is that the first degree murder verdict director incorrectly hypothesized the predicate felony, namely, robbery.
But the failure to observe this requirement has never been held to constitute prejudicial error, and we do not find it to be so in this case. See State v. Flowers, 630 S.W.2d 585 (Mo.App. 1981); State v. Simpson, 614 S.W.2d 31, 33[3] (Mo.App. 1981); State v. Clark, 607 S.W.2d 817, 821[5] (Mo.App. 1980); State v. Brown, 607 S.W.2d 881, 886[8] (Mo.App. 1980). For a more detailed discussion of the problem discussed here, see State v. Flowers, supra. Prosecutor's jury argument.