Opinion ID: 2005875
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Instruction on Facilitation to Reckless Homicide

Text: The trial court must give any requested instruction that is supported by a reasonable view of the evidence. Monroe v. Commonwealth, 244 S.W.3d 69, 75 (Ky. 2008). A person is guilty of criminal facilitation if, acting with knowledge that another person is committing or intends to commit a crime, he engages in conduct which knowingly provides such person with means or opportunity for the commission of the crime and which in fact aids such person to commit the crime. KRS 506.080. By its plain meaning, criminal facilitation requires the facilitator to know that the principal actor intends to commit a crime. Id.; Skinner v. Commonwealth, 864 S.W.2d 290, 298 (Ky.1993). Reckless homicide, however, is characterized by a lack of intent of the person committing homicide. To be convicted of reckless homicide, a person must act  without an intent to kill but fail[] to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his actions would result in the victim's death. Saylor v. Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 812, 819 (Ky.2004) (emphasis added) (citing KRS 507.050(1) and KRS 501.020(4)). [1] In this case, the trial court properly declined to instruct the jury on facilitation to reckless homicide. In fact, it is impossible, under any set of facts, to facilitate reckless homicide. Facilitation requires knowledge that a person intends to commit a crime; a person cannot intend to commit reckless homicide. Accordingly, one cannot facilitate reckless homicide. Moreover, it is no answer that the instruction would be required because a reasonable view of the evidence supports that Appellant knew Edwards intended to commit a crime other than reckless homicide, such as robbery. [S]imple knowledge that a crime will be committed is not enough to satisfy the knowledge element for facilitation. . . . Commonwealth v. Nourse, 177 S.W.3d 691, 700 (Ky.2005). Instead, the defendant must have knowledge that the principal actor intends to commit the crime the defendant is actually charged with facilitating. Id. Hence, the trial court was correct to decline to instruct the jury on facilitation to reckless homicide. Last, it is worth noting that the crime for which Appellant was convicted, reckless homicide, is appropriate for his conduct based on the evidence presented at trial. If Appellant gave Edwards a gun and told him to rob Clowers, the jury could reasonably conclude that he acted without an intent to kill [Clowers] but failed to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that arming Edwards for the robbery would result in Clowers' death. Cf. Saylor, 144 S.W.3d at 819. Consequently, the instructions given at trial were proper.