Opinion ID: 1952440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Jury Instructions on Accomplice Liability

Text: Harris contends that the Superior Court should have instructed the jury to assess Harris' guilt for the degree of the offense of homicide in accordance with his own culpable mental state, pursuant to Section 274 of the Criminal Code. [13] The record reflects that Harris' attorney did not object to the Superior Court's formulation of the jury instructions on accomplice liability. This Court generally declines to review contentions neither raised nor fairly presented to the trial court for decision. Accordingly, the failure to object at trial usually constitutes a waiver of a defendant's right to raise the issue on appeal unless the error is plain. Under that standard of appellate review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process. [14] Since the State sought a conviction for murder in the second degree and the lesser included offense of manslaughter, the jury was required, as a matter of Delaware law, to distinguish between Harris' liability for the offense of homicide and Harris' culpability for the degree of the homicide, i.e., the crime of murder in the second degree or manslaughter. A similar problem was addressed by this Court in Chance v. State. [15] In the instant case, as in Chance, the jury instructions for the lesser-included crime of manslaughter permitted the jury to return a verdict that was commensurate with Harris' own mental state. [16] Therefore, while the Superior Court's instructions to the Harris jury should have included the provisions in Section 274, the omission of that specific instruction does not constitute plain error. [17]