Opinion ID: 1998644
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Manlove's Second Trial Only As Principal

Text: Co-conspirator and accomplice liability are different forms of criminal conduct. [10] A conspiracy requires an agreement between co-conspirators, but the object of the conspiracy need not be accomplished. For accomplice liability, generally no prior agreement is required, but the underlying crime must have occurred. [11] Accordingly, Manlove's acquittal of Conspiracy in the Second Degree at his first trial did not collaterally estop the State from seeking a conviction for Robbery in the First Degree on the basis of accomplice liability at Manlove's retrial. Nevertheless, the first jury's acquittal on the conspiracy count did collaterally estop the State from arguing or presenting evidence at the second trial that Manlove and his companion planned or agreed to steal the puppy from Slater. [12] Because Manlove was acquitted of conspiracy at the previous trial, any conviction based on accomplice liability at his second trial could only be based on Manlove's unilateral actions and could not be based on a plan or an agreement. [13] Therefore, a carefully crafted jury instruction would have been required if an accomplice liability instruction was requested at Manlove's second trial. [14] However, at Manlove's retrial, the State proceeded exclusively on the basis of his criminal liability as the principal perpetrator of the offenses committed against Slater, rather than as an accomplice. The State apparently decided to avoid the legal quagmire presented at the second trial in Banther, where following Banther's earlier acquittal on conspiracy, the State relied upon an accomplice liability theory during Banther's retrial. [15] All of the prosecution's evidence at Manlove's second trial, with the exception of Trooper Goode's recounting of Manlove's interview, suggested that Manlove was the person who confronted Slater, punched her in the face and stole her pitbull puppy. In his opening argument to the jury, the prosecutor summarized the State's case against Manlove, as follows: After hearing this case, all the evidence, we will be asking you to convict the defendant of the two offenses that he is charged with. These are robbery in the first degree and assault in the third degree. The Criminal Code defines robbery as using force to take property from another and causing physical injury. In this case, the property was the dog, the injury was the black eye. She had a red mark on her chest. I submit to you at the close of the case that it is really clear that he used that force in order to obtain the property. The elements of the assault are just that he intentionally or recklessly caused physical injury to another.