The opinion
LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge:
concurs in result.
1 This case presents an issue of instructional error only. Had the trial court issued OUJI-CR 2d 10-27, which is a clear and correct statement of the law, the problem would have been resolved.
12 Furthermore, this case does not present a question of first impression. See, e.g., Bland v. State, 2000 OK CR 11 , 1 89, 4 P.3d 702, 726 (same argument raised, but rejected, based upon giving of OUJI-CR 2d 10-27); Washington v. State, 1999 OK CR 22, 139 , 989 P.2d 960, 973 ('The jury was further instructed that it should consider first degree murder and if it entertained a reasonable doubt, then it should consider second degree murder as is required by OUJI CR2d 10-24."); Childs v. State, 68 Okla.Crim. 435 , 99 P.2d 539, 540-41 (1940)(same instruction found fair and favorable to a defendant). Indeed, the Committee Comments regarding this instruction indicate careful consideration has been given in drafting it to comply with many of this Court's decisions and to comply with 22 0.8.1991, § 916.
18 Therefore, the Opinion now modifies this clear and correct statement of the law with an unnecessary instruction that is itself confusing, using a double negative in con-junetion with the words unanimously and "may consider." I suspect this new instruc *1029 tion, drafted with one set of facts in mind, may soon come back to haunt us. "Often, thinking to knot one thread, we tie another." Victor Hugo, Les Miserables With that thought in mind, I can only coneur in the result reached here.
T4 I am authorized to state Judge Lile joins in this special vote.