Opinion ID: 664133
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Accessory After the Fact

Text: 39 Dinkane claims that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of accessory after the fact to bank robbery. His proposed instruction would have addressed both armed and unarmed bank robbery. Although there is some dispute over the appropriate standard of review when a trial court rejects certain types of proposed jury instructions, see United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 883 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 928, 127 L.Ed.2d 220 (1994), we have consistently reviewed the denial of lesser included offense instructions for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Pedroni, 958 F.2d 262, 268 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Linn, 880 F.2d 209, 217 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Wagner, 834 F.2d 1474, 1487 (9th Cir.1987). 40 Entitlement to a lesser-included offense instruction turns on completion of a two-step process. 'First, the defendant must identify the lesser-included offense. Second, the defendant must demonstrate that a rational jury could find the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense but not the greater.'  Linn, 880 F.2d at 218 (quoting United States v. Pace, 833 F.2d 1307, 1314 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1011, 108 S.Ct. 1742, 100 L.Ed.2d 205 (1988)). 41 A lesser included offense instruction is not necessary where the evidence is such that [a] rational jury could not have convicted [the defendant] of any lesser-included offense without relying on the precise evidence which establishes guilt of the offenses charged. Linn, 880 F.2d at 218. Under such circumstances the defendant fails to show that a reasonable jury could find him guilty of a lesser-included offense but not the greater offense. 42 Dinkane's arguments rest primarily on his claim that he knew nothing of the robbery prior to the hold up and that his only participation was during the escape phase. He argues that on the basis of this evidence the jury could only have found that he was an accessory after the fact. This argument overlooks the fact that the escape phase is part of the unarmed bank robbery. Because the evidence that would convict Dinkane as an accessory after the fact to unarmed bank robbery, evidence that he drove the getaway car and that he fled with the robbers, also establishes his guilt as an aider and abettor of unarmed bank robbery, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the requested instruction. We need not consider whether the trial court erred by refusing to give this instruction with respect to the armed bank robbery because we reverse Dinkane's conviction on that count.