Court Opinion

ID: 9677890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:04:15.0954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:59.579693
License: Public Domain

MORGAN, Judge
(dissenting).
1 respectfully dissent from the conclusion reached in the principal opinion.
There can be no doubt that the law, as it pertains to one charged with having aided and abetted another in the commission of a crime, is correctly stated; however, I can not agree that Instruction No. 11A, as given, failed to meet the demands of the rule of law being considered.
The instruction first required the jury to find that Kenneth (the son) “did wilfully and feloniously * * * stab with a knife and kill one Robert Hugh Martin * * *» jf this finding was made, the jury was further instructed, “if you further find that the defendant (the mother) * * * was present at the said time and place, and knowing the unlawful intent of (the son), did aid, abet, help and assist (the son) in the commission of such act” (emphasis added), defendant should be found guilty of manslaughter.
The sole question is — did Instruction 11A require the jury to find defendant (the mother) acted “intentionally”? I am convinced that it did. After it was found that Kenneth (the son) acted “wilfully and fe-loniously,” the jury also was required to find that the defendant (mother) did aid, abet, help and assist while “knowing the unlawful intent of Kenneth * * *” It seems not only logical but fair to conclude that the mother (knowing of the unlawful intent of the son) did adopt such intent as her own when she continued to actively assist in the commission of the crime. Her doing so provided the basis for the jury to conclude she acted “intentionally.” I do not believe that any jury of reasonable men and women could have been misled by the absence of the one word “intentionally” from the instruction as given. The use of that specific word is not dictated nor required by the precedents cited.