Opinion ID: 2271140
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Court Properly Denied Request for Instructions on Facilitation to Robbery and Burglary.

Text: We have concluded the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on facilitation to assault, but we further conclude the trial court properly denied Hall's requests for instructions on facilitation to robbery and facilitation to burglary. A defendant is not entitled to an instruction not supported by the evidence. [55] And, as the trial court noted, the evidence was that Hall clearly took an active role in planning and carrying out the robbery and burglary, including going into the home and taking money. There was no evidence he merely facilitated the burglary and robbery. We explained in Monroe v. Commonwealth [56] the difference between complicity and facilitation: a complicitor must be an instigator, or otherwise invested in the crime, while a facilitator need only be a knowing, cooperative bystander with no stake in the crime. [57] Here, Hall admitted to being an instigator, who planned with others to burglarize and rob Jackson, with a clear vested interest in the crimes the desire to obtain money to meet his drug-related and other expenses. And there was no evidence presented indicating he was merely a bystander who knew Hodge would rob and burglarize the victims but was indifferent as to whether the crime would be committed and had no stake in the crime. [58] To the contrary, the uncontradicted evidence showed Hall took an active role in planning and carrying out the burglary and robbery; consequently, he was not entitled to an instruction on facilitation to robbery and burglary. [59] So the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on facilitation to robbery and facilitation to burglary.