Opinion ID: 853947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Instructions on Aiding and Abetting Were Proper

Text: At trial, Berry tendered an instruction on aiding and abetting. He now asserts error in the trial court's refusal of that instruction. Berry's trial counsel objected to the State's instruction on accomplices on the basis that it was prejudicial to his case. [3] On appeal, Berry argues that the instruction was improper, that it was incomplete, and that it did not allow him to present an adequate defense. These arguments are forfeited by Berry's failure to make them at trial. Berry proposed his instruction # 9 as an alternative to the State's tendered instruction on aiding and abetting. It read: In order to be guilty as an accessory, one must intend by his own actions to cause or facilitate the commission of the crime by the principal offenders. (R. at 70.) The substance of Berry's tendered instruction was covered in final instruction # 9A. (R. at 103.) The pertinent portions of this instruction are as follows: A person is responsible for the actions of another person when ... he knowingly aids, induces or causes the other person to commit a crime.... To aid is to knowingly support, help, or assist in the commission of a crime.... In order to be held responsible for the actions of another, he need only have knowledge that he is helping in the commission of a crime. Id. While instruction # 9A informs the jury that a defendant must knowingly participate, it also states accurately that a defendant is not required to participate in every element of a crime to be an accomplice. Thus, the court's instruction covered the topic of the instruction Berry tendered and did so more completely and more accurately. The court was correct to reject Berry's instruction under our case law governing such decisions. Cf. Davis v. State, 265 Ind. 476, 355 N.E.2d 836 (1976).