Opinion ID: 2629208
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Death Penalty Pursuant to To Convict and Aggravating Factors Instructions

Text: Both the to convict instruction and the aggravating factors special verdict form in Thomas's case were substantially the same as those found to be erroneous in Roberts. In Roberts, we reversed that defendant's death sentence given under the same to convict and aggravating factors instructions as were given in Thomas's trial. Roberts held, in part, that where a defendant is being tried for first degree aggravated murder solely as an accomplice, that defendant's major participation in the murder or events leading up to the murder must be proved before the death penalty can be imposed. Roberts, 142 Wash.2d at 503, 14 P.3d 713 (citing Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 158, 107 S.Ct. 1676, 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987)). In Roberts, the to convict instruction was erroneous because it informed the jury that the elements of the crime could be committed by Roberts `or someone to whom he was an accomplice....' Therefore, the `to convict' instruction did not require the jury to find that Roberts acted with premeditated intent.... Id. at 504, 14 P.3d 713 (quoting clerk's papers). This was true despite a special interrogatory where the jury had found Roberts acted with premeditated intent. Id. The instruction also did not require a showing that Roberts had personally caused the death or that he actively participated in the events leading up to the death, i.e., his major participation. Id. The aggravating factors instruction in Roberts read: (1) The defendant and his accomplice committed the murder to conceal the commission of a crime or to protect or conceal the identity of the person committing a crime; or (2) The murder was committed in the course of, in furtherance of, or in immediate flight from a robbery in the first or second degree or a kidnapping in the first degree. Roberts, 142 Wash.2d at 504, 14 P.3d 713 (quoting clerk's papers). This court noted that while the first question required some form of actus reus by virtue of the word and, how much was not specified. The second question was worded in the passive voice such that no finding of actus reus on the part of the defendant was required. Id. This instruction was problematic because a jury that answered affirmatively to both questions could impose the death penalty even if Roberts did not personally cause the death or if he were only a minor participant in the events leading up to the death. Id. The to convict and aggravating factors instructions were erroneous in conjunction with one another because they allow a defendant to be sentenced to death without a showing that he or she personally caused the victim's death or was a major participant in the homicidal acts. Id. at 506, 14 P.3d 713. Thus, [w]hen jury instructions as used in [Roberts's] case allow for the possibility that the defendant was convicted solely as an accomplice to premeditated first degree murder, the defendant may not be executed unless the jury expressly finds (1) the defendant was a major participant in the acts that caused the death of the victim, and (2) the aggravating factors under the statute specifically apply to the defendant. Id. at 508-09, 14 P.3d 713. These findings by the jury should be done through special interrogatories when the State is trying its case based on accomplice liability. Id. at n. 12. Thus, contrary to Thomas's assertion, a jury is not required to find the defendant personally killed the victim in order to support a death sentence, only that he was a major participant in the events leading up to the victim's death. While Thomas did not object at trial to the aggravating factors and to convict instructions, as noted in Roberts, [e]xtensive authority supports the proposition that instructional error of the nature alleged here is of sufficient constitutional magnitude to be raised for the first time on appeal. Roberts, 142 Wash.2d at 500, 14 P.3d 713. Thomas is correct in his insistence that the error in his aggravating factors instruction is more egregious than that in Roberts because the first question in Thomas's instruction reads: [t]he defendant or an accomplice committed the murder to conceal the commission of a crime or to protect or conceal the identity of any person committing a crime.... CP at 1461 (emphasis added). [2] The or removes a requirement that the jury find any form of actus reus at all on Thomas's part and relieves the State of its burden to prove the aggravating circumstances as they pertain to the defendant. See Roberts, 142 Wash.2d at 504, 14 P.3d 713. That is to say, this instruction permits the jury to impose a death sentence on Thomas even if it finds that the aggravating factors apply only to Rembert, his accomplice. Thomas's to convict instruction, as in Roberts, does not require the jury to find he acted with premeditated intent.