Opinion ID: 2315121
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the controversy over the aiding and abetting instruction

Text: The prosecution case was presented in its entirety on the theory that Brooks was the principal, rather than an aider or abettor. The prosecutor began his opening statement by telling the jury that You will hear in this case evidence of how the man who sits before you today, Reginald Brooks, was caught in the act of burglarizing the Lincoln House Restaurant. The government's theory remained the same during closing argument: The most important evidence is to consider what happened once Mr. Brooks got inside. What did he do? He went in and tried to steal the liquor bottles. He went in and he broke open this cigarette machine, left cigarettes and money all over the place. How do we know he had an intent to steal when he went in? That's what he did when he went in. The government's focus never changed during the presentation of the case. With the express consent of both counsel, the trial judge decided to instruct the jury before closing argument. [5] He did so because it is easier for you to make your arguments based on the instructions that the jury has already heard. It is much easier for the jury, having heard the instructions, then to follow your argument. The judge thus correctly viewed it as especially important that both Brooks and the prosecutor be apprised of the content of the instructions before making their arguments. His determination that the instructions should be given first was plainly designed to assure that this be effectively accomplished. Indeed, the purpose of Super.Ct.Crim.R. 30 is to provide counsel with the opportunity to fashion their closing arguments according to the charges to be submitted to the jury. Ballard v. United States, 430 A.2d 483, 487 (D.C.1981). During the discussion of proposed jury instructions, the prosecutor requested the judge to include in his charge standardized jury instruction No. 4.02, which deals with aiding and abetting. [6] CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA No. 4.02 (3d ed. 1978). Brooks questioned whether there was any basis in the record for giving this instruction. In response to an inquiry by the judge, the prosecutor confirmed that, to use the judge's words, the theory would be that the jury could find Mr. Brooks guilty as having aided and abetted Ms. Murphy in these offenses. The prosecutor pointed out that Ms. Murphy was found near the tools with which the rear door might have been dislodged, and argued as a fair inference from the evidence that Ms. Murphy either herself broke open the door or helped somebody else break open the door or was perhaps holding the tools for the person that did break open the door. The judge responded that he could see how the evidence relating to Ms. Murphy might support an aiding and abetting instruction in her case if she were on trial; it was possible, in other words, that Ms. Murphy was aiding and abetting Brooks. Citing Payton v. United States, 305 A.2d 512, 513 (D.C.1973) (per curiam), however, he concluded that the evidence that there was a principal whom Brooks could have aided and abetted was vague and inconclusive. Relying on Payton, the judge declined to give the requested instruction, thus putting the parties on notice that the closing arguments would have to be fashioned on the premise that Brooks was accused of being the principal, rather than of assisting someone else to burglarize the property. During closing argument, the prosecutor again focused on the government's evidence that Brooks was a burglar who had been caught in the act. In response, Brooks, who had not testified and therefore could not be cross-examined, represented to the jury that he was never in the restaurant, [7] and suggested that there could have been a missing link suspect who might have seen the owner, left the establishment through the back door, and escaped through the alley. In his rebuttal argument, the prosecutor responded, quite correctly, that there was no evidence from the witness stand that there was yet a third person involved here in this burglary, apart from Mr. Brooks, who came running out, and apart from Ms. Murphy standing in the back alley with the burglar tools in her pocketbook. That was where matters stood in relation to the dispute over an aiding and abetting instruction until the court heard, several days later, from another vital participant in the proceedings, namely the jury. Jury deliberations had begun on Friday, October 21, 1983. At 4:50 p.m. on Tuesday, October 25, the jury sent the judge a note which read as follows: If a person knows of a crime and is present during the crime and agrees with the commission of the crime, is that person guilty of a crime? Please clarify the law on these questions, particularly in reference to petit larceny. The prosecutor immediately suggested that the judge respond to the request by now giving the jury instruction which the judge had previously rejected, namely, No. 4.02. The prosecutor argued that the jury may have creditedthat the jury may be wrestling with the suggestion that there was yet a third person involved in the burglary who escaped arrest. He pointed out that Brooks had argued something to the jury, or at least implied as much to the jury, that another person might have escaped from the restaurant and had hidden himself in the alleyway, or just run away, simply run away from the officers who were coming north from the alleyway, by himself running north through the alleyway. Brooks objected to the instruction, contending that the prosecutor had relied on the theory that he was the principal rather than an aider and abettor of another person. The judge, however, now decided to give the aiding and abetting instruction, explaining his rationale as follows: Well, I think that I have to distinguish the government's theory in this case from the testimony of the witnesses that the government has presented. The government's witnesses, in response to questions from you, Mr. Brooks, gave testimony concerning the possibility of a person other than you having hid in that area or made his way out through some other means. While I think that is pretty thin, that is certainly what you relied on in your argument to the jury. I think that that theory of the case, even though the jury may doubt it, that theory is before them. So, I am going to reverse the decision that I made earlier in denying this instruction. I am going to go ahead and give it to the jury now in response to their question. The judge then directed that jurors be returned to the courtroom, and read them Instruction No. 4.02 on aiding and abetting. At approximately 11:00 a.m. on the following morning, after less than two hours of additional deliberation, the jury announced that it had reached a verdict, which turned out to be unfavorable to Brooks on all counts.