Opinion ID: 1778775
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Hornburger Instruction Issue

Text: ¶ 13. The aider and abettor instruction charged by the trial court is virtually identical to that of Hornburger v. State, 650 So.2d 510 (Miss.1995), a case in which we deemed that instruction erroneous. ¶ 14. In Hornburger, the objectionable instruction, S-8, stated: The Court instructs the Jury that each person present at the time, and consenting to and encouraging the commission of a crime, and knowingly, willfully and feloniously doing any act which is an element of the crime or immediately connected with it, or leading to its commission, is as much a principal as if he had with his own hand committed the whole offense; and if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Gregory Hornburger, a/k/a Greg Hornburger, did willfully, knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously do any act which is an element of the crime of burglary of a building, or leading to its commission, then and in that event, you should find the defendant guilty as charged. Id. at 513-14. This Court found this instruction erroneous, but deemed it harmless for purposes of case disposition. We found that S-1-A, the elements of burglary instruction, properly stated the law, thus curing any problems caused by S-8. In the instant case, the aider and abettor instruction, S-3, is virtually identical to that of Hornburger: The court instructs the jury that each person present at the time, and encouraging the commission of a crime, and knowingly, wilfully and feloniously doing any act which is an element of the crime or immediately connected with it, or leading to it [ sic ] commission, is as much a principal as if he had with his own hand committed the whole offense; and if you believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Defendant, Raymond R. Liggins, did wilfully, knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously do any act which is an element of the crime of armed robbery, or the crime of aggravated assault, or immediately connected with those crimes, or leading to the commission of those crimes, then and in that event, you shall find the Defendant, Raymond R. Liggins, guilty of armed robbery and/or the crime of aggravated assault. ¶ 15. Identifiable differences exist between the two instructions. In Hornburger, the jury was charged that if the requirements of the instruction were met, it normatively should find the defendant guilty. In the instant case, the jury was charged that it shall [1] find Liggins guilty. Further, Hornburger `s instruction required consent to be deemed a principal and found guilt to derive from an act which is an element of or leads to the commission of the crime. On the other hand, the instant case's instruction did not require consent for principal status while it deemed guilt to stem from an act immediately connected with the crimes, as well as an act which is an element of or leads to the commission of those crimes. ¶ 16. Both instructions are objectionable in their effect. In Hornburger, it was pointed out that [instruction S-8] basically says if you find [the defendant] did any act which is an element of the crime of burglary, you shall find [the defendant] guilty as charged. Hornburger, 650 So.2d at 514. As Liggins objected at trial, S-3 lessens the burden of the State to prove every element of a crime by suggesting that if they can show any act which is an element of the crime, then the instruction directs them to find the defendant guilty. Liggins basically argued that the State must simply show an act which is an element of the crime, rather than prove every element, to require a jury to find a defendant guilty. ¶ 17. We found that the instruction in Hornburger was harmless error because of its sufficient sister instruction and because the term should was used as opposed to the shall utilized in the instant case. Further, Hornburger `s instruction required a greater burden on the state to prove the necessary elements, whereas the instant case's instruction, lessened the state's burden. Hornburger is not this case. It is reversible error in this case.