Opinion ID: 1382788
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: failure to include instructions on complicity to lesser-included homicide offenses

Text: Next, Harper argues that the trial court erred in failing to instruct on complicity to first- and second-degree manslaughter. Harper tendered instructions on these offenses, but the trial court refused to submit them to the jury because the evidence showed that Burden's actions in killing Phillips only could be intentional. While we agree with the trial court that there was no evidence to support a finding that Burden's shooting of Phillips was other than intentional, we disagree with the trial court's conclusion that this settled the issue. First, we note that complicity liability under subsection (1) of KRS 502.020 requires both proof that another committed the charged offense and proof that the defendant intended for another to commit that offense. In other words, there is an identity between the offense committed by another and the offense that the defendant/accomplice intended that the other person commit. Further, as already shown, complicity liability under subsection (1) of KRS 502.020 is an intentional crime. Thus, it is an impossibility for Harper, based on her mental state, to be guilty under subsection (1) of complicity to second-degree manslaughter, which requires a wanton state of mind. However, from the evidence presented, the jury could have believed that Burden shot Phillips with the intent to cause Phillips serious physical injury which thereby killed Phillips and that Harper, by her actions, intended that Burden shoot Phillips with the intent of causing Phillips serious physical injury. Thus, the trial court should have instructed the jury on first-degree manslaughter. Harper also argues that she was entitled to an instruction on second-degree manslaughter pursuant to subsection (2) of KRS 502.020, which provides in pertinent part: When causing a particular result is an element of an offense, a person who acts with the kind of culpability with respect to the result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense is guilty of that offense when he: (a) Solicits or engages in a conspiracy with another person to engage in the conduct causing such result; or (b) Aids, counsels, or attempts to aid such person in planning, or engaging in the conduct causing such result ... While not preserved, we address the merits of this issue because it is likely to recur at retrial. We recently explained the difference between subsection (1) accomplice liability and subsection (2) accomplice liability in Tharp v. Commonwealth, Ky., 40 S.W.3d 356 (2000): The primary distinction between these two statutory theories of accomplice liability is that a person can be guilty of complicity to the act under KRS 502.020(1) only if he/she possesses the intent that the principle actor commit the criminal act. However, a person can be guilty of complicity to the result under KRS 502.020(2) without the intent that the principal's act caused the criminal result, but with a state of mind which equates with the kind of culpability with respect to the result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, whether intent, recklessness, wantonness, or aggravated wantonness. Id. at 360, quoting the Official Commentary to KRS 502.020 (emphasis in original). Thus, an instruction for second-degree manslaughter is not automatically precluded under subsection (2) as it is under subsection (1). Further, subsection (2) complicity liability is not limited to non-intentional mental states. It is important to note that under subsection (2) of KRS 502.020, an accomplice's liability and the principal actor's liability can be at different levels, e.g., the accomplice could be found guilty of complicity to reckless homicide even though the homicide was committed wantonly or intentionally by the principal actor. This is different than complicity liability under subsection (1), which, by definition, provides that the accomplice's liability and the principal's liability occupy the same level and status. See Wilson, 601 S.W.2d at 286. Moreover, under subsection (2), proof of the principal actor's mental state is not even necessary. As to the principal actor, proof that another caused the prohibited result is all that is required. Under subsection (2), only the defendant/accomplice's mental state is at issue, i.e., the Commonwealth must prove the accomplice's culpability toward the prohibited result. In the case at bar, complicity to second-degree manslaughter for Harper pursuant to KRS 502.020(2), would require proof: (1) that another (presumably Burden) killed Phillips; (2) that Harper actively participated in Burden's actions which resulted in Phillips' death; and (3) that Harper acted wantonly. On the record before us, an instruction on second-degree manslaughter appears to be supported by the evidence. If the evidence is the same or similar at retrial, the trial court should instruct the jury on second-manslaughter (or any other appropriate primary or lesser-included offense supported by the evidence) based on a subsection (2) theory complicity liability.