Opinion ID: 1435298
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instruction Lesser Included Offense

Text: Herring was charged with accomplice liability for robbery, in accordance with Section 271. [2] Herring's first argument on appeal is that Section 274 [3] required the Superior Court to instruct the jury regarding the lesser included offense of Theft. Section 274 provides the following: When, pursuant to § 271 of this title, 2 or more persons are criminally liable for an offense which is divided into degrees, each person is guilty of an offense of such degree as is compatible with that person's own culpable mental state and with that person's own accountability for an aggravating fact or circumstance. According to Herring, Section 274 entitled him to a jury instruction on all lesser included offenses. Herring's argument confuses two distinct legal principles. The first legal principle is that an offense can be divided into degrees. The second legal principle is that lesser included offenses frequently extend beyond being only a degree of the charged offense. Herring was charged with accomplice liability for robbery. In Herring's case, the use of the word offense in Section 271 and Section 274 is reconciled by construing it to mean robbery. [4] Robbery is an offense that is divided into degrees. In accordance with Section 274, the Superior Court properly instructed the jury to distinguish between Herring's accomplice liability for the specific degree of robbery: first or second. We note, however, that the use of the word degree in the title of a crime is not always the end of the inquiry pursuant to the mandate of Section 274. [5] Although Theft is a lesser included offense to Robbery in the First Degree, it is not a degree of robbery. [6] Herring was not entitled to have the jury instructed on a lesser included offense that did not constitute a degree of robbery, unless there was a rational evidentiary foundation in the record for such an instruction on the basis of either the principal's conduct (Torres) or the independent conduct of the alleged accomplice (Herring). The record reflects that, based upon Herring's own testimony, there was no rational basis for an instruction on the lesser included offense of Theft. [7] Theft, by definition, is when a person takes, exercises control over or obtains property of another person without force but with the intent to deprive that person of the property. [8] Herring admitted taking part of the food order from the victim, Campos, who was being held at knifepoint by Torres. Such an act could only constitute a degree of robbery.