Opinion ID: 1988594
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Assault Instruction Properly Denied

Text: Ayers third argument is that the trial judge erred by denying the defendant's request for a jury instruction of assault as a lesser-included offense of homicide. The standard of review for a denial of a requested jury instruction is de novo. [10] Ayers argues that he was entitled to jury instructions on the lesser-included offense of assault on the State's theory of accomplice liability, pursuant to Del.Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 271, 274 and Chance v. State. [11] The record reflects that the trial judge properly concluded there was no rational basis in the evidence for an instruction to the jury on assault. As part of its instructions on accomplice liability, the Superior Court properly followed this Court's holdings in Chance and Demby v. State, [12] by instructing the jury on the lesser-included degrees of homicide. In the event the jury found that Ayers was Anderson's accomplice rather than an innocent bystander, that instruction permitted the jury to find Ayers guilty of a homicide offense in such degree as was compatible with his own mental state as the non-shooter. [13] The record reflects no rational basis in the evidence, however, for instructing the jury on assault. [14] Unlike Chance, where the various participants in the assault beat and kicked the victim to death, this case involved a lone gunman who walked up to Wells and shot him in the back and abdomen.