Case Title: Reed v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR96-31-0

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-09-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
James Edward REED v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-310                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
              Opinion delivered September 23, 1996


1.   Jury -- instructions to jury were proper -- AMCI instructions
     should be used if they accurately state the law. -- If an AMCI
     is available on the subject, a non-AMCI instruction should not
     be used unless the AMCI does not state the law; here, AMCI 401
     was a proper statement of the law because it accurately
     tracked the language of the accomplice statute at Ark. Code
     Ann.  5-2-403(a).

2.   Criminal law -- accomplice liability properly imposed -- State
     was not required to show it was appellant's conscious object
     to commit arson. -- The State, to sustain its arson count, was
     not required to prove that it was appellant's "conscious
     object" to commit arson; section 403(a) permits the jury to
     impose accomplice liability on appellant if the State merely
     showed that he aided his co-defendant "with the purpose of ...
     facilitating the commission of" arson; the instruction given
     by the trial court said exactly that. 


     Appeal from Greene Circuit Court; David Goodson, Judge;
affirmed.
     Jon A. Williams, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Vada Berger, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     David Newbern, Justice.
     James Edward Reed was convicted of two counts of burglary, two
counts of theft, and one count of arson.  All of the offenses
alleged occurred on a day when Mr. Reed, Eric Thul, and Scotty
Lewis skipped school, did not have enough money to spend their
holiday as they wished, and decided to burglarize houses as they
rode about in an automobile.  Mr. Reed was tried jointly with Eric
Thul.  Mr. Reed's sole point of appeal concerns the Trial Court's
refusal to give a non-AMCI instruction to the jury concerning
accomplice responsibility.  The refused instruction was proffered
by Mr. Thul, and the proffer was joined by Mr. Reed who asked that
the instruction apply to him as well.  We hold that the Trial Court
properly declined the proffered instruction in favor of AMCI 2d
401.
     The evidence showed that the three young men burglarized
several homes including that of Mr. and Mrs. Orin Tritch.  The
Tritch home was set afire.  Mr. Thul testified he saw Mr. Reed set
fire to curtains and a sofa cushion there.  He also testified that
Mr. Reed asked him if they should burn the house and Mr. Reed later
indicated regret for having done so.  Mr. Reed testified he only
stood on the Tritch porch and served as a "lookout."  Scotty Lewis
corroborated Mr. Reed's testimony that Reed remained on the porch,
and he further testified that when Mr. Thul emerged from the Tritch
home he said, "Let's go, it's getting hot."  Testimony from others
indicated that Mr. Thul admitted to setting the fire without Reed
or Lewis knowing about it.
     The instruction proffered by Mr. Thul and joined by Mr. Reed
stated as follows:

     An accomplice is criminally responsible for the acts of others
     only to the extent he has a shared criminal purpose with the
     others.  If you ultimately find that Eric Thul [James Edward
     Reed] was an accomplice, you may find him guilty only of a
     crime you determine he had a conscious object to engage in, or
     a conscious object to cause such a result.

In proffering the instruction, Mr. Thul's counsel stated it was
based upon this Court's decision in Fight v. State, 314 Ark. 438,