Opinion ID: 666559
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Enmund Accomplice Liability

Text: 43 In Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982), the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits imposition of the death penalty on a defendant who aids and abets a felony in the course of which other principals do the actual killing if he, as an accomplice, does not kill, attempt to kill, intend the killing to take place, or foresee the employment of lethal force. Enmund's case, however, is different than Deputy's. Enmund was the driver of a get-away car. Id. at 786 n. 2, 102 S.Ct. at 3370 n. 2. The jury found him guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of robbery. Id. at 785, 102 S.Ct. at 3370. Under Florida's death penalty statute, aiding and abetting a felony murder permitted capital punishment. Enmund, as an aider and abettor, was a principal in the crime of first degree murder under the applicable Florida statute. He was sentenced to death under Florida law after the trial judge found no mitigating circumstances and four aggravating circumstances: (1) the capital felony was committed while Enmund was engaged in or was an accomplice in the commission of an armed robbery; (2) the capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain; (3) it was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel; and (4) Enmund was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence. Id. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court decided the evidence permitted an inference that Enmund was the person sitting in the driver's seat of a car parked beside the road near the victims' home as well as the further inference that he was waiting there to help the actual robbers escape. From these inferences, the Florida courts concluded that Enmund had aided and abetted the robbery. The Supreme Court of Florida then held Enmund could be subjected to the same punishment as any other principal to the crime of premeditated or felony murder, including capital punishment. 44 The Supreme Court, after listing and comparing the various state death penalty statutes as they were then worded, was troubled by those which subject an actor in a felony murder to the death penalty without proof that he acted with a mens rea that could make him culpable for the killing itself. It went on to cite Delaware's statute as one requiring the defendant who causes death during commission of a felony to act with a mental state short of intent such as recklessly or with criminal negligence. Id. at 790 n. 8, 102 S.Ct. at 3373 n. 8 (quoting Del.Code Ann. tit. 11, Secs. 636(a)(2), (6) (1979)). The Court held that imposition of the death penalty without proof that Enmund killed, attempted to kill, or even contemplated the taking of life in the course of the robbery he aided violated the Eighth Amendment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine Enmund's state of mind. Id. at 798, 801, 102 S.Ct. at 3377, 3378. 45 Five years later in Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 107 S.Ct. 1676, 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987), the Supreme Court made explicit what its remand in Enmund implied. It held that the death penalty can be imposed on a defendant who is an accomplice to a felony that results in murder if he is recklessly indifferent to or recklessly disregards human life. Id. at 158, 107 S.Ct. at 1688. Tison was convicted of capital murder under Arizona's felony-murder statute for his participation in multiple homicides committed by his father. The state conviction was based on the principle that each participant in a kidnapping or robbery is legally responsible for the acts of his accomplices. Tison had participated in an armed jailbreak that freed his father and another prisoner. It eventually led to the robbery and killing of a family that had stopped along the road to render aid to the Tisons after their escape. 46 After considering Enmund, the state supreme court upheld the death penalty because Tison could have anticipated the use of lethal force during the victims' attempt to flee. Id. at 145, 107 S.Ct. at 1681. The Supreme Court affirmed. It concluded that Tison's active participation in events that made murder plainly foreseeable distinguished his case from Enmund. Enmund was not present when the victims were murdered and, as driver of the get-away car, did not participate in the actual homicide. Tison, on the other hand, participated in a kidnapping during which it became apparent that the victims would be murdered. The Supreme Court held these facts supported a finding that Tison was recklessly indifferent to human life and so had the mens rea needed to support a death sentence. Id. at 158, 107 S.Ct. at 1688. 47 Here, in instructing the jury at the guilt phase of Deputy's trial, the trial judge stated: 48 You may find the defendant guilty of the offenses if you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that: 49 (a) The other person performed all of the elements of the offenses charged as I have defined them for you. 50 (b) The defendant intended, that is, it was his conscious object or purpose to promote or facilitate commission of the offenses. 51 (c) The defendant aided, counseled, agreed or attempted to aid the other person in committing the offense. 52 Deputy II, 500 A.2d at 599. On his direct appeal in the Delaware Supreme Court, Deputy argued the jury under this instruction could have found him guilty of first degree murder, even if it believed his trial testimony that he did not take part in the actual stabbing of the two victims, merely because he was an accomplice. Id. The Delaware Supreme Court rejected that argument. It distinguished Enmund because Enmund was a get-away car driver who played no role in the actual killings, but Deputy, like Tison, was present when the killings occurred, actively participated in the commission of the underlying felony of robbery in the first degree, and, at the very least, did nothing to stop the murders or even object to his co-defendant Flamer's acts in committing them. Id. Relying on this evidence, the Delaware Supreme Court decided Deputy was not solely a participant in the underlying felony but was present during, and involved in, the actual murders. Id. He was not vicariously liable as a mere accomplice. Id. Though the Delaware Supreme Court rejected Deputy's argument, he persists in arguing the jury's finding that he was guilty on all four murder counts was inconsistent with Enmund because it could have been based solely on a theory of accomplice liability. 11 53 Deputy's tenuous claim that he was a less culpable accomplice ignores 145 stab wounds the record reveals were inflicted upon the two victims by two weapons. Moreover, Deputy possessed one of the victims' watch and wallet the morning after the killings. See id. Significantly, Deputy's characterization of the facts is at odds with the Delaware Supreme Court's finding as to his participation, a conclusion accorded a presumption of correctness. In Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U.S. 376, 106 S.Ct. 689, 88 L.Ed.2d 704 (1986), the Supreme Court cautioned courts of appeals considering habeas petitions to refrain from focusing on the jury instructions when the state court has made its own findings about the basis for the jury's decision. Id. at 388-89 & n. 5, 106 S.Ct. at 698 & n. 5. We are also instructed to examine all the state court proceedings to see whether a finding about the defendant's culpability was made at any point in them, either by the jury, the state trial court, or a state appellate court. If such a finding has been made, we must defer to it under the presumption of correctness set out in 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2254(d) provided the procedure is not flawed and the conclusion is supported by the record. Id. Here, the Delaware Supreme Court has made a finding that Deputy participated in the robbery of two elderly persons and that he did so in reckless disregard of human life. See Deputy II, 500 A.2d at 599. It has support in the record. The imposition of capital punishment on Deputy is consistent with Tison and does not contravene Enmund. Deputy has made no substantial showing of constitutional error in this respect. We agree with the district court that a certificate of probable cause should not issue on this basis.