State v. Smith, Minn.Ct.App., 8/21/2017.A jury convicted Ms. Smith of various counts of aiding and abetting crimes: second degree assault, third degree assault, and simple robbery. She complained on appeal that the trial court had given an erroneous instruction on accomplice liability and should get a new trial.
Ms. Smith and a Mr. McKee came to the home of N.N. and A.M. Upon entry, Mr. McKee pulled a bandana over his face and struck N.N. three times in the head. A.M. said that Ms. Smith was blocking her way so that she could not get past her during the assault. Ms. Smith and Mr. McKee then went into a bedroom where they found J.F.; A.M. gave Mr. McKee her money, prescription pills and her cell phone; Mr. McKee and Ms. Smith then left.
Ms. Smith's instructions error focused on the requirement that the state prove that she had "intentionally aided" Mr. McKee. The trial court instructed the jury that the state had to prove that Ms. Smith "knew her alleged accomplices were going to or were committing a crime." Ms. Smith argued that the instruction should have been that she knew that Mr. McKee "was going to commit" a crime. She relies upon a series of opinions that contained this "was going to commit" language: State v. Huber, 877 N.W.2d 519 (Minn. 2016); State v. Kelley, 855 N.W.2d 269 (Minn. 2014); State v. Bahtuoh, 840 N.W.2d 804 (Minn. 2013); State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675 (Minn. 2007).
Under a "plain error" analysis the court of appeals can ignore what these opinions had said. The court emphasized that the trial court still has considerable discretion in drafting jury instructions and that these instructions adequately got the point across to the jury correctly. In sum, the court said:
A defendant who acquires the requisite knowledge while the accomplice is in the process of committing the offense, and makes the choice to aid in its commission either through her presence or her actions, is guilty as an accomplice under the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 609.05.
No comments:
Post a Comment