Opinion ID: 1628838
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Armed Criminal Action Verdict Directors

Text: In a related point, Gill alleges the trial court erred in submitting Instructions 15, 17 and 19, the verdict directors for armed criminal action, because they did not follow the Notes on Use with regard to accomplice liability. Instruction 15 provided, in pertinent part: As to Count III, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that defendant committed the offense of murder in the first degree, as submitted in Instruction No. 8, and Second, that defendant committed that offense with the aid of a deadly weapon, then you will find the defendant guilty under Count III of armed criminal action.... Instructions 17 and 19 submitted the offense of armed criminal action as to the lesser included offenses of second-degree murder and second-degree felony murder but were otherwise identical to Instruction 15. These instructions were erroneous, Gill explains, because the evidence showed [Gill] did not use a weapon. In support, he cites Note on Use 4 to MAI-CR3D 332.02, which requires [w]here it is alleged that a person other than the defendant employed a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, the verdict director for armed criminal action must be in the form of MAI-CR 3d 304.04 [aider and accomplice liability]. To the contrary, as noted, the evidence was unclear as to who fired the gun, so the murder verdict directors properly posited that defendant or Justin M. Brown shot Mr. Lape. Note on Use 4 also provides that [w]here the defendant's liability for the underlying felony is premised on accomplice liability and where it is alleged that the defendant himself employed a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument in the commission of the offense, it is not necessary to submit the verdict director on Armed Criminal Action (MAI-CR 3d 332.02) in the form of Aider Liability. Here, the verdict directors in the underlying felony (murder) did in fact allege that Gill himself employed a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument in the commission of the offense, and although that submission was couched in the disjunctive, it still was unnecessary to use the accomplice liability language of MAI-CR3D 304.04 in the ACA verdict director. The trial court did not err in submitting these instructions.