Opinion ID: 1431933
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Codefendants' Roles

Text: The defendant alleges that because his defense was that his codefendant fired the fatal shot, the court should not have instructed the jury to disregard other participants' role in the crime. The court instructed the jury as follows: It is no defense to the crimes charged against the defendant in this case that one or more other persons not now on trial might have also participated or co-operated in the crimes thus charged. The jury is not to speculate upon or even to consider the reasons for the absence from the Courtroom of such other persons if any. As the only matter before you for decision is the guilt or innocence of this particular defendant. This instruction is a slight variation of R.A.J.I. No. 3.04 (1974). We have previously determined that the identical instruction that the trial judge gave in this case should not be excluded based upon the theory that someone else committed the crime. See State v. Cannon, 148 Ariz. 72, 79, 713 P.2d 273, 280-81 (1985). We find no significant differences in the facts of the present case that persuades us to change our position in Cannon. We find no error.