Opinion ID: 1547441
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidence to Support Aiding and Abetting or Conspiracy

Text: Baker, Sampson, and Woodland all make arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to the theories of aiding and abetting and conspiracy. We will not reverse a conviction for insufficient evidence unless there is no evidence from which a `reasonable mind might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' Perry v. United States, 812 A.2d 924, 930 (D.C.2002) (citation omitted). Appellant Baker argues that his convictions for aggravated assault and assault with intent to kill as to Buford are supported by insufficient evidence of aiding and abetting or a conspiracy. [21] Baker asserts that vicarious liability under a conspiracy theory is grounded entirely on a statement testified to by Dockery, that Baker told Sampson and Woodland to go upstairs at 1303 T Street, while Baker and Franklin would go downstairs. Baker argues that this evidence shows, if Baker entered the house, that it was only to rob someone on the first floor, and he could not have aided and abetted Sampson in the assault on Buford on the second floor. See Jones v. United States, 625 A.2d 281, 288-89 (D.C.1993) (no aiding and abetting where appellant was present but there was no evidence that he participated or assisted in the crime). Baker makes much of the fact that there were essentially two crime scenes  one on the first floor involving him, and one on the second floor to which he was not a party. However, the jury could have fairly concluded the assault on Buford was part of a continuous chain of events that started when appellants were across the street planning to enter the presumably (at 3 a.m.) occupied house. See Lee v. United States, 699 A.2d 373, 386 (D.C.1997) (reasonable jury could have found that shootings [or a stabbing] were a means of facilitating the successful completion of the armed burglary, and that the burglary and the [stabbing] were `all part of one continuous chain of events') (citation omitted); see also Price v. United States, 813 A.2d 169, 176-77 (D.C.2002) (evidence sufficient for aiding and abetting where appellant arrived with two companions, who had visible guns, and remained with them as one made threats to kill and the other shot two people). Baker argues that he is also not liable under a conspiracy theory of liability because an assault on Buford was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the purported conspiracy to rob Lyles and assault Pinkney. Gordon, supra, 783 A.2d at 582. In Pinkerton, supra, as discussed previously, the Supreme Court held that a co-conspirator may be held liable for an offense directly committed by another co-conspirator if the crime was committed in furtherance and within the scope of the conspiracy and was reasonably foreseeable. 328 U.S. at 647-48, 66 S.Ct. 1180. There was a continuous chain of events planned by the appellants prior to entering the house, which supports the conviction on the basis of a conspiracy theory. [22] Appellant Sampson argues that there is insufficient evidence to find that he aided and abetted the murder of Pinkney or assault of Buford. [23] Sampson contends that there was no evidence he assisted or participated in the crimes with culpable purpose or guilty knowledge. See Hordge v. United States, 545 A.2d 1249, 1254 (D.C.1988). Because there was sufficient evidence that Sampson committed the burglary, the only required showing for aiding and abetting for felony murder is that there be a causal connection between the murder and burglary. Lee, supra, 699 A.2d at 385. Here, as in Lee, there was an unbroken chain of events, beginning with the men entering the house with the intent to rob and assault, which included the murder that happened inside the house within moments of entry. Id. Further, there was evidence that Sampson not only aided and abetted, but was the principal actor in the assault on Buford, who described his assailant as carrying a gun consistent with the one Dockery and Lyles testified that Sampson was carrying. Dockery also heard Baker direct Sampson to go upstairs in the house upon entry. Woodland argues that there was no direct evidence that he was present at 1303 T Street and vicarious liability under Pinkerton was the only possible basis for his convictions. With that in mind, Woodland asserts that there was insufficient evidence that he participated in a conspiracy where no witness testified to any statement made by Woodland about participating in or approving of the conspiracy. There is evidence that: (1) Woodland was with the group while they were making plans at 1911 13th Street, (2) he was armed with a knife, (3) Baker instructed him to go upstairs in the T Street house, and (4) he ran across the street to the backyard of the T Street house with the group. Minutes later, Woodland was with Baker and Franklin in the alley behind Dockery's house, and was seen discarding a white mask as he ran. While there is only circumstantial evidence that Woodland actually entered the house on T Street, because no one places him there, the weight of the other evidence is sufficient to support a finding by the jury that he participated in the conspiracy. [24] See Clark v. United States, 755 A.2d 1026, 1030 (D.C.2000) (equal weight accorded to direct and circumstantial evidence).