Opinion ID: 4644044
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: However, if the [s]tate fails to prove beyond a

Text: reasonable doubt that defendant committed the offense either as ‘principal actor’ or under the theory of ‘aiding and abetting,’ then you must find the defendant ‘not guilty’ as to the charge in Count l.” - 12 - She proceeded to give further instructions as to what it meant for defendant to have committed the offense in question as the principal actor and what it meant for defendant to have aided and abetted in the commission of the offense. After the jury charge was delivered, defendant objected to the aiding-and- abetting instruction.2 The trial justice overruled defendant’s objection. 2 Specifically, defendant made the following objection: “Your Honor, as the [c]ourt I’m sure anticipates, because of communications we’ve had previously, I’m objecting to the fact that the [c]ourt gave a so-called ‘aiding and abetting instruction’ on the charge of Assault With a Dangerous Weapon. First of all, Judge, I don’t see, respectfully, any evidence whatsoever of aiding and abetting. It’s noteworthy that aiding and abetting is not a lesser included offense within the crime of assault with a dangerous weapon. Aiding and abetting, as the [c]ourt noted in its instructions to the jury, generally refers to one who assists, aids, counsels, orders, procures, et cetera, et cetera. In this case, if the jury accepts the fact that Mr. Haffner was in fact or is in fact guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it can only do so as a ‘principal.’ All of the evidence seems to suggest that he in fact is a principal in this case. I recognize from some research that it doesn’t matter that his confederates, if you will, the other people who kicked Mr. Gieck, punched him, et cetera, are not named or identified from the [s]tate’s witnesses. But I’m concerned that this aiding and [a]betting instruction will confuse the jury. Respectfully, it is not an appropriate charge to give this jury especially because the only evidence is that he was as a principal. It is a one count Information, Assault With a Dangerous Weapon, to wit, a shod foot. I didn’t hear a single witness say, for example, Mr. Haffner held Mr. Gieck down, or that he was otherwise egging on anybody else to kick him. So for - 13 - After deliberating, the jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts of the information.3 On the charge of assault with a dangerous weapon, defendant was sentenced to five years, with eighteen months to serve and the remainder of the sentence suspended, with probation; and on the DUI charge, he was given a oneyear sentence, the entirety of which was suspended, with probation, to run concurrently with the first sentence.4