Opinion ID: 365815
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instruction for Offense of Aiding and Abetting

Text: 48 The court instructed the jury that any one of the defendants charged with armed bank robbery could be found guilty of that offense if he either directly committed the offense or aided and abetted the commission of the offense. 2 Mills contends that the court committed reversible error by failing to instruct further that Mills could not be found guilty of aiding and abetting an armed bank robber unless he Knew that the robber carried a deadly weapon. 49 Mills did not object to the instructions; therefore, he is entitled to no relief on appeal unless the omission from the jury instructions amounts to plain error. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Houston, 547 F.2d 104, 107-108 (9th Cir. 1976). We will not reverse for plain error unless it appears necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Id.; United States v. Eskridge, 456 F.2d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.) Cert. denied, 409 U.S. 883, 93 S.Ct. 171, 34 L.Ed.2d 138 (1972). 50 The jury was instructed generally that Mills could not be convicted unless he willfully aided another person committing armed bank robbery. The evidence shows that Mills passed within a few feet of Vargas while Vargas had his gun drawn inside the bank; it is difficult to conceive that the jury would have rendered a different verdict had it been specifically instructed that knowledge of the gun was an essential element. This differs from United States v. Short, 493 F.2d 1170 (9th Cir. 1974), relied upon by Mills, because in that case the trial judge had erroneously instructed the jury that knowledge of the weapon was not an element of the crime. There was no plain error.