Opinion ID: 1772836
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: exclusion of a specific act in the complicity instruction

Text: Mills argues that the complicity to murder instruction should have included the specific act or acts of complicity he committed. Specifically, he argues that the jury should have been instructed to find that he gave Bowen the knife with the intent that she use it to kill Ratliff. He tendered instructions that would have required the jury to find in pertinent part: A: That ... [Mills] gave a knife to Melody Bowen; And B: That Melody Bowen intended to use the knife for the purpose of killing William Ratliff by cutting his throat; And C: That when [Mills] gave the knife to Melody Bowen, [Mills] knew Melody Bowen intended to kill William Walker Ratliff by cutting his throat with the knife and that the knife would provide her with the means to do so The trial court did not submit the defense's tendered instruction; rather, the trial court's instruction to the jury on the complicity to murder charge echoed the elements of complicity set forth in KRS 502.020(2): A: That ... Melody Mollette Bowen killed William Walker Ratliff by stabbing him with a knife; B: That in so doing Melody Mollette Bowen caused the death of William Walker Ratliff intentionally; C: That prior to the stabbing of William Walker Ratliff by Melody Mollette Bowen ... [Mills] either solicited, commanded, or conspired with Melody Mollette Bowen to engage in the conduct which resulted in the death of William Walker Ratliff, or aided, counseled, or attempted to aid Melody Mollette Bowen in planning or committing the conduct performed by her which caused the death of William Walker Ratliff.... The complicity to murder instruction given by the trial court in this case was sufficient. The complicity instruction tendered by Walker is not required by case law or by the plain language of KRS 502.020. Unlike a murder instruction where the cause of death, e.g. strangulation, stabbing, shooting with a gun, etc., is readily ascertainable, the acts giving rise to accomplice liability are not so readily defined and may encompass a continuum of events. As in this case, not only did Bowen testify that Mills supplied her with the knife and directed her to stab Ratliff, but she also testified that he arranged the ruse with the car and that he earlier in time indicated that he knew where they could get some money. Thus, complicity liability often will not depend on a particular act, but on many different acts that occur at different points in time. Moreover, it may well be that it is only the accumulation of acts that serves to prove complicity. In other words, no particular act in and of itself would serve as the defining act that, under Mills' argument, should be included in a complicity instruction. There was no error.