Opinion ID: 1246237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the crime of aiding and abetting

Text: Copetitioner Milton LaVanway assigns error to jury instruction No. 10 delineating the elements of the offense, or charge of aiding and abetting. [5] The instruction to which he objects is substantially based upon RCW 9.01.030. He contends that the bare language of jury instruction No. 10 failed to convey the requirement that an overt act is required as a necessary element of the offense of aiding and abetting a grand larceny. Thus, contends the petitioner, the jury was able to bring in its verdict based only upon Milton's presence at the restaurant. To remedy this deficiency, counsel for the defense offered its proposed jury instruction No. 2 [6] which is couched in the language of our decision in State v. Peasley, 80 Wash. 99, 141 P. 316 (1914), and clearly sets forth the requirement of an overt act. As stated in State v. Catterall, 5 Wn. App. 373, 379, 486 P.2d 1167 (1971), mere physical presence and assent to the commission of the crime is not enough to constitute one an aider or abettor of the principal commiting the crime. If I may interpolate the language of our recent unanimous decision in State v. Walker, 82 Wn.2d 851, 857, 514 P.2d 919 (1973), Peasley was controlling law at the time of trial, and LaVanway's proposed jury instruction which set forth the Peasley holding should have been given to the jury. Hence, the rejection of the jury instruction incorporating a proper statement of the law was error. I would remand this case for a new trial consistent with the views expressed in this dissent. ROSELLINI and UTTER, JJ., concur with FINLEY, J.