Opinion ID: 1699278
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: The trial court read an erroneous instruction on the law of principals.

Text: Defendant claims the trial court's instruction on the law of principals allowed the jury to convict him of first-degree murder absent a finding that he specifically intended to kill (or inflict great bodily harm to) the victim. The trial court instructed the jury at the conclusion of the guilt phase that all persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether present or absent and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, aid and abet in its commission, or directly or indirectly counsel or procure another to commit the crime are principals. (R., vol.XV, pp. 3522-23). Later in its charge, the trial court read the jury the definition of first-degree murder, which it correctly defined as the killing of a human being ... when the offender has the specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm and in addition is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of... second degree kidnapping ... or aggravated burglary. (R., vol.XV, p. 3527). Still later, it instructed the jury that to convict defendant of first-degree murder it must find that the defendant killed Mary Ann Malone and defendant acted with a specific intent to inflict great bodily harm and was in engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of ... second degree kidnapping ... or aggravated burglary. (R., vol.XV, p. 3527). As an initial matter, the record shows defendant did not contemporaneously object to the instruction and thereby waived any claim based on it. LA.CODE.CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 841. Nevertheless, considering that after it defined the law of principals, the trial court twice charged the jury that to convict defendant of first-degree murder it was required to find he possessed specific intent, it is unlikely the jury misunderstood the trial court's charges. This argument lacks merit.