Opinion ID: 867281
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Enmund/Tison Instructions

Text: ¶ 47 Garcia argues that the trial court erred by incorrectly defining major participant and reckless indifference in the Enmund/Tison jury instructions. To prevail on this issue, Garcia must establish fundamental error because he did not object to the trial court's final instructions, which modified those that he had proposed. See Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567 ¶¶ 19-20, 115 P.3d at 607. ¶ 48 Garcia requested that the trial court give the Revised Arizona Jury Instructions (RAJI) Capital 1.0 Degree of Participation Instruction, which included the following language: In determining whether the defendant was a major participant in the felony, some factors to consider include: the degree to which the defendant participated in the planning of the felony; whether the defendant possessed a weapon or furnished weapons to any accomplice; the degree to which the defendant participated in the felony; and the scope of the defendant's knowledge of the completion of the felony. A defendant acts with reckless indifference to human life when that defendant knowingly engages in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death to another human being. The defendant's culpability ultimately rests on whether the defendant was aware or believed that the defendant's acts were likely to result in the death of a person. A finding of reckless indifference cannot be based solely upon a finding that the defendant was present at the time of the killing, merely participated in a crime resulting in a homicide or failed to render aid for the victims to call for help. ¶ 49 The trial court substantially followed Garcia's major participation instruction, but added whether the defendant reported the crimes as another factor for the jury to consider. It also condensed the reckless indifference instruction by telling the jury: A defendant acts with reckless indifference when the defendant knowingly engages in criminal activities that he's aware may likely create a grave risk of death to others. A finding of reckless indifference cannot be based solely on a finding that the defendant was present at the time of the killing or failed to render aid to the victims. ¶ 50 Garcia first argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could consider his failure to report the crime in determining if he was a major participant. Although previous cases may have suggested otherwise, see State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 23, 926 P.2d 468, 490 (1996) (noting failure to contact authorities among factors supporting finding of major participation), we agree that juries should not be instructed to consider this factor with regard to major participation. This factor may, however, be relevant in determining if a defendant acted with reckless indifference. See State v. Lacy, 187 Ariz. 340, 351, 929 P.2d 1288, 1299 (1996) (finding that failure to render aid or call for help does not alone establish reckless indifference). Garcia's failure to report the robbery after the fact does not bear on his participation in the robbery while in progress, and it was error to instruct the jury otherwise. ¶ 51 Nevertheless, Garcia has not established that the instruction constituted fundamental error. Identifying the failure to report the crime as one of several factors that the jury could consider in determining if Garcia was a major participant was not an error of fundamental magnitude. Nor has Garcia shown prejudice. The evidence of his major participation included his leading Sheffield into the bar, shouting drop the money, pushing Johnson up against the wall, and being in close proximity when Johnson was shot to death. Garcia cannot convincingly argue that the jury's finding of major participation rested on his failure to report the crime. ¶ 52 Garcia also argues that the reckless indifference instruction improperly relieved the State of its burden of proving that he subjectively realized that his conduct would likely lead to death. We disagree. The trial court told the jury that reckless indifference requires finding that the defendant knowingly engage[d] in criminal activities that he [was] aware may likely create a grave risk of death to others. The written jury instructions similarly stated that to find reckless indifference, the jury had to conclude that Garcia knowingly engage[d] in criminal activities that he [was] aware w[ould] likely create a grave risk of death to others.