Court Opinion

ID: 9635910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:10:11.878089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:38.800726
License: Public Domain

CAMPBELL, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the result reached by the majority of the Court in this case, but write separately to explain my views of how appellant has drawn the issue presented herein. As the majority correctly points out, appellant contends in his ground for review that “the accomplice witness charge was defective since it failed to instruct the jury regarding mere presence.” The charge, however, did not fail to instruct the jury regarding mere presence. The trial judge did instruct the jury that “[m]ere presence alone ... will not constitute one a party to an offense.” Appellant’s actual complaint is that the trial judge failed to additionally instruct the jury that the “[m]ere presence of the [defendant with an accomplice shortly before or shortly after the commission of a crime is not sufficient corroboration.” Since appellant’s complaint was that the trial court refused to submit this requested language, his ground for review should have reflected that complaint, instead of alleging that the trial court wholly failed to instruct the jury on mere presence.
While the issue should have been drawn more precisely, I feel that appellant was entitled to either the requested instruction or an instruction of similar import. The trial court’s charge, as set out in the majority opinion, first defines “accomplice.” The charge then instructs the jury how a person may be criminally responsible as a party. Then, the charge instructs the jury that mere presence, in and of itself, does not render someone a party to an offense. The problem I see with the charge is that it is vague on whether the mere presence language applies to appellant or to the accomplice.
The trial judge instructed the jury that Keehner, who testified for the State, was an accomplice as a matter of law. The charge, however, fails to explain to whom the mere presence language applies. The language could be interpreted as referring to the accomplice’s mere presence or to the defendant’s mere presence. Appellant’s requested instruction, however, suffered from no such vagaries, as it sought to specifically apply the law of mere presence to the facts of the case by instructing the jury regarding the “[mjere presence o/the [defendant with an accomplice ...” (Emphasis added). On the facts of this case, appellant was entitled to an instruction to this effect. Therefore, with these comments I concur in the result reached by the majority.
MALONEY, J., joins.