Opinion ID: 2010891
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: First-Degree Murder While Armed and PFCV

Text: Reliance on the count one conspiracy instruction to cure the defect in the aiding-and-abetting instruction, however, extends only to the intent to murder; the conspiracy instruction says nothing about the additional while armed language in count one of the indictment or about the validity of the count two instructions as applied to PFCV. [31] Thus, we must consider whether the aiding-and-abetting instruction and/or the Pinkerton co-conspirator instruction adequately covered the additional jury finding required for conviction of murder while armed, as well as the findings necessary for conviction of PFCV. [32] Had the jury not convicted Wheeler of conspiracy to murder, two decisions of this court, Wilson-Bey and Lancaster, [33] would have dictated that his conviction of aiding and abetting PFCV required, respectively, a proper instruction, followed by a jury finding, that Wheeler took specific steps to assist Taylor's killer in the actual possession of a firearm; a general participation in the criminal venture to prove aiding and abetting of the possessory firearms offense is not enough. [34] Thus, without a conspiracy, a jury finding on count two that it was reasonably foreseeable to the aider and abettor that some type of weapon was required to commit Taylor's murder would not suffice for conviction of PFCV. [35] Similarly, if Wilson-Bey were applicable to the when armed language in D.C.Code § 22-4502(a)an issue we do not decidewe could not conclude that the trial court's instruction, allowing the jury to rely on reasonable foreseeability of a firearm, satisfied the intent requirement for aiding and abetting an armed offense under § 22-4502(a). [36]