Opinion ID: 1886434
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Erroneous Aiding-and-Abetting Jury Instructions

Text: The government concedes that the trial court's jury instructions on aiding and abetting armed robbery were plain error in light of this court's decision in Wilson-Bey v. United States, 903 A.2d 818 (D.C. 2006) (en banc). [2] Here, the trial court instructed the jury: [i]t is not necessary that the defendant have had the same intent that the principal had when the crime was committed or that he or she had the intent to commit the particular crime committed by the principal offender. An aider and abettor is legally responsible for the acts of other persons in which he or she intentionally participates. The government concedes that under Wilson-Bey these instructions improperly authorized the jury to find Gayles guilty of aiding and abetting armed robbery without proof that Gayles herself had the essential mens rea to commit the crime. Wilson-Bey, 903 A.2d at 838. [3] The government also concedes that the error is plain for purposes of appellate review, [4] but argues that reversal is not appropriate here because the error did not affect Gayles's substantial rights. To meet that test, Gayles must demonstrate that the error had a reasonable probability of having a prejudicial effect on the outcome of her trial, and that the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding. Comford v. United States, 947 A.2d 1181, 1189-90 (D.C.2008). Gayles fails to meet this burden. Even without the erroneous instruction, we think a reasonable juror could conclude from Gayles's behavior that she shared the principals' specific intent to rob Greene, and thus was guilty of aiding and abetting the armed robbery. While Gayles and Greene were discussing their transaction, Greene suggested they go to a hotel, but Gayles insisted they go to her apartment, where, she assured Greene, it was safe. She instructed Greene where he should park his van, which was stolen after the robbery with keys he surrendered to the robbers. After they went to her apartment, Gayles told Greene she had to step out of the apartment for a moment (over Greene's objections) and when she returned a few minutes later, she was followed by three armed men who robbed Greene at gunpoint. In light of this evidence, we hold that the erroneous jury instruction did not have a reasonable probability of affecting the outcome of Gayles's trial, and we affirm Gayles's conviction for aiding and abetting armed robbery.