Opinion ID: 2306140
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lack of a Principal

Text: Franklin argues that the trial court also erred in failing to instruct the jury that the government needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one of the defendants was the principal offender. Although Franklin is correct that for a defendant to be convicted as an aider and abettor, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of the underlying crime, including commission of the crime by someone else, see In re J.W.Y., 363 A.2d 674, 677 (D.C. 1976), the court did not need to instruct the jury to find which of the three defendants was the principal offender because, while there must be evidence that someone other than the defendant was the principal..., it is not necessary for conviction that the principal's identity be established. Price v. United States, 813 A.2d 169, 176 (D.C.2002). Further, the judge instructed the jury that, for aiding and abetting to apply, the defendant [must have] ... associated himself with the persons who committed the crime (emphasis added), which ensured a finding by the jury that there was a person who committed the crime other than Franklin. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court on this point.