Opinion ID: 1059011
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Concert of Action/Joint Participation

Text: Winston asserts that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on concert of action and [that] its jury instruction 24 was improper. (A.E.41). Jury instruction 24 stated: If there is concert of action with the resulting crime of attempted robbery, burglary, shooting into an occupied dwelling or use of a firearm in the commission of a felony as one of its incidental probable consequences, then whether such crime was originally contemplated or not, all who participate in any way in bringing about those crimes are equally answerable and bound by the acts of every other person connected with the consummation of such resulting crime. According to Winston, [t]his instruction tends to indicate all who participate are guilty of the `resulting crime,' reasonably interpreted by the jury to be `capital murder' because the instruction failed to explicitly state that it did not apply to the capital murder charge. Winston unfairly construes the instruction. By listing four specific crimes, the instruction makes clear that it applies only to those crimes. To read this instruction otherwise would imply that any time a defendant is charged with and simultaneously tried for more than one crime, the instructions for each crime would have to list each of the other crimes to which it does not apply. Such a requirement is unnecessary. Furthermore, the capital murder instruction specifically stated that principals in the second degree were excluded from responsibility for capital murder. Winston also argues that instructions 26A and 26B improperly instructed the jury that a defendant may be found guilty of capital murder if the defendant participated in the acts leading to the victim's death. (A.E.42). Jury instruction 26A stated: The Court instructs the jury that the evidence must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the person who killed Ronda [sic] Robinson before you can find him guilty of the capital murder of Ronda [sic] Robinson. One who is present, aiding and abetting the actual killing, but who does not perform the killing, is a principal in the second degree and may not be found guilty of capital murder. You may find the defendant guilty of capital murder if the evidence establishes that the defendant jointly participated in the fatal shooting, if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was an active and immediate participant in the act or acts that caused the victim's death. Jury instruction 26B stated: The Court instructs the jury that the evidence must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the person who killed Anthony Robinson before you can find him guilty of the capital murder of Anthony Robinson. One who is present, aiding and abetting the actual killing, but who does not perform the killing, is a principal in the second degree and may not be found guilty of capital murder. You may find the defendant guilty of capital murder if the evidence establishes that the defendant jointly participated in the fatal shooting, if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was an active and immediate participant in the act or acts that caused the victim's death. Winston focuses on the second paragraphs of the instructions. He argues that each is improper for two reasons. First, he argues that the second paragraphs of the instructions were not supported by the evidence because [t]here was no evidence [that] two persons participated in the death of Rhonda Robinson and no substantial evidence [that] Anthony Robinson was killed by the joint acts of two persons. Second, Winston argues that the language of each is misleading because it does not require Leon Winston to be the triggerman. According to Winston, the second of two phrases beginning with if could allow the jury to find that participation in the robbery and burglary makes the defendant an active and immediate participant in the act or acts that caused the victim's death. In other words, he alleges that the language of the second paragraphs of instructions 26A and 26B does not describe the role of a triggerman narrowly enough. Neither of these arguments has merit. The Commonwealth cites Lenz v. Warden, 265 Va. 373, 381, 579 S.E.2d 194, 199 (2003), and Strickler, 241 Va. at 493-95, 404 S.E.2d at 234-35, in support of the instructions. In those cases, we approved language similar to that used in instructions 26A and 26B. In Lenz, the victim, a fellow inmate in the state prison, suffered 68 stab wounds, all of which contributed to the victim's death. Both Lenz and another inmate were accused of stabbing the victim with knives. In approving an instruction which allowed the jury to convict Lenz of capital murder if the Commonwealth proved `beyond a reasonable doubt that [Lenz] was an active and immediate participant in the act or acts that caused the victim's death, we cited Strickler, holding that when two or more persons take a direct part in inflicting fatal injuries, each joint participant is an `immediate perpetrator' for the purposes of the capital murder statutes. Lenz, 265 Va. at 381, 579 S.E.2d at 199 (citing Strickler, 241 Va. at 495, 404 S.E.2d at 235). Additionally, Winston fails to consider the second paragraphs in context. The first paragraph of each instruction makes it quite clear that one who does not perform the killing may not be guilty of capital murder. In this case, Anthony was struck by eight bullets. Two bullets recovered from Anthony's body were 9-millimeter bullets; one bullet was a .38 caliber bullet. The two different weapons involved suggest two different gunmen were involved and Rorls' testimony supports this proposition. The evidence establishes that Winston used the 9-millimeter handgun. [2] According to the medical examiner, all of Anthony's wounds were inflicted while he was alive and his death was caused by blood loss from the bullet wounds. Because the evidence suggests that Winston was responsible for seven of the wounds contributing to Anthony's death, while one wound was attributable to another handgun, instruction 26A was proper. Winston was one of two people who, by firing two different handguns, inflicted fatal injuries upon Anthony Robinson. Rhonda was struck by three bullets. The evidence suggests that all three were fired from a 9-millimeter handgun. The Commonwealth argued that of the two men in the house, Winston used the 9-millimeter handgun. Under the Commonwealth's theory, only one man was responsible for shooting Rhonda. There is no evidence that Winston used the .38 caliber handgun. There is ample evidence that he used the 9-millimeter handgun. The trial court did not err in giving instructions 24, 26A, and 26B to the jury.