Opinion ID: 1739626
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the trial court err in refusing defendant's instruction d-3 setting forth the burden of proof as to the guilt of the principal?

Text: Van Buren seeks to infuse the requirements of the felony accessory statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 97-1-3 (1972), into the vote fraud provision of § 23-9-703. Section 97-1-3 provides the law concerning accessories to felonies before the fact. It provides: Every person who shall be an accessory to any felony, before the fact, shall be deemed and considered a principal, and shall be indicted and punished as such; and this whether the principal have been previously convicted or not. Ms. Van Buren's argument appears two-fold: 1) she was not indicted as a principal as the statute requires, and 2) the state's proof failed to meet the burden placed upon it by the statute. To take the second argument first, in interpreting this accessory statute, this Court has maintained that the state may not assume a crime has been committed. The state must prove: [B]eyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis that the crime charged was committed by another, and to further prove beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis that the accused was present, consenting, aiding and abetting such person in the commission of the crime charged. Consequently, on retrial the jury should be so instructed. Smith v. State, 237 Miss. 498, 115 So.2d 318 (1959), and Wages v. State, 210 Miss. 187, 49 So.2d 246 (1950). Ray v. State, 330 So.2d 580, 587 (Miss. 1976). See also Jackson v. State, 377 So.2d 1060, 1063 (Miss. 1980), reh'g denied; Gilmer v. State, 271 So.2d 738, 740-41 (Miss. 1973). The trial court's refusal of such an instruction is the basis of Ms. Van Buren's fourth assigned error. Ms. Van Buren's theory is that vote fraud, if committed, was committed by Mildred Branch, not Octavia McMorris. Ms. McMorris was at most a witness or a victim, we are told, and since Ms. Van Buren was not charged with aiding or abetting Mildred Branch, she cannot be convicted of aiding or abetting vote fraud. We are unpersuaded. Ms. Van Buren's argument to the contrary notwithstanding, we think Miss. Code Ann. § 23-9-703 (Supp. 1985) did not incorporate our felony accessory law. Instead, the statute creates a separate offense. The indictment tracks the pertinent language of the statute: Any person who willfully, unlawfully and feloniously procures, seeks to procure, or seeks to influence the vote of any person voting by absentee ballot, ... or any person who aids, abets, assists, encourages, helps, or causes any person voting on absentee ballot to violate any provision of law pertaining to absentee voting ... shall be guilty of the crime of vote fraud and upon conviction shall be sentenced.... Ms. Van Buren was not indicted for aiding and abetting the crime of vote fraud. Rather, she was indicted for vote fraud for aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting or causing Ms. McMorris to violate any provision of law pertaining to absentee voting. Here the provision violated is Miss. Code Ann. § 23-9-605(2) (Supp. 1985). That provision states in part: Any elector desiring an absentee ballot as provided in this article may secure same if:       (2) Within thirty days next prior to any election, any elector who cannot comply with subsection (1) of this section by reason of temporarily residing outside the county or by reason of being physically incapacitated, may make application for an absentee ballot by mailing the appropriate application to the registrar. Only persons temporarily residing out of the county of their residence or physically incapacitated persons may obtain absentee ballots by mail, under the provisions of this subsection. Such application shall be sworn to and subscribed before an official who is authorized to administer oaths or other official authorized to witness absentee balloting as provided in this chapter, said application to be accompanied by such verifying affidavits as is required by this article. ... (emphasis added) A finding that Ms. Van Buren, with the requisite intent, aided, abetted, assisted, encouraged, helped or caused Octavia McMorris to violate this provision is a finding of guilt of the crime of vote fraud. Therefore, Ms. Van Buren was indicted as a principal. As should be clear, the state under these circumstances need not prove that Octavia McMorris committed a crime, only that she violated the absentee ballot procedure mandated in § 23-9-605(2). We think the plain intent of the statute was to penalize both those who act as accessories to principal violators and those who act as principals by manipulating innocent voters.