Opinion ID: 2271958
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Aiding-and-Abetting Instruction

Text: During its deliberations, the jury sent a note asking [h]ow does aiding and abetting fit into first or second degree murder? In response, the court repeated the legally erroneous [13] natural and probable consequences instruction that it had given earlier, i.e.: It's not necessary that the defendant . . . have had the same intent as the principal offender had when the crime was committed or that he have intended to commit the particular crime committed by the principal offender. An aider and abettor is legally responsible for the acts of the other persons that are the natural and probable consequences of the crime in which he intentionally participates. Peete argues that the erroneous instruction permitted the jury to convict him of first-degree murder without proof that he acted with premeditation to kill the victims. He asserts that the jury obviously was confused by the aiding and abetting instruction since it sent a note asking for clarification and then reached its verdict about an hour after it was re-instructed. Peete did not object to the instruction at trial. To the contrary, both defense counsel urged the court to re-read it in response to the jury's question. Thus, our plain-error review standard applies. Although it is now plain that the instruction was erroneous, Peete cannot satisfy the remaining prongs of the plain error test. We agree with the government that [a]ny impartial trier of fact who credited the prosecution's evidence would . . . be bound to conclude that Peetewho had been beefing with the victims, who brought a semiautomatic pistol to the scene, and whom each eyewitness identified as the shooteracted as a principal rather than as an aider and abettor and did so with premeditation, deliberation and a specific intent to kill. See Wilson-Bey, 903 A.2d at 846-47. The jury, which convicted Mungo of only second-degree murder, obviously found that Mungo played a lesser role in the murders. Peete cannot show that the erroneous instruction affected his substantial rights, [14] because there is no reasonable possibility that the jury relied on the aiding-and-abetting instruction to convict the principal Peete of first-degree murder. See Fortson v. United States, 979 A.2d 643, 659 (D.C.2009).