Court Opinion

ID: 9787363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:15:15.16273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:55.197377
License: Public Domain

MANNHEIMER, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with my colleagues that Cole failed to show that he was prejudiced by his trial attorney's failure to call Dr. Rogers to testify about the cause of death. However, I reach this result for a different reason.
Cole and his accomplice, both armed with firearms, stood outside their victim's car and fired over a dozen bullets into it. Ballistics analysis revealed that a bullet from Cole's gun wounded the victim in the shoulder, while a bullet from his accomplice's gun wounded the victim in the chest. The victim later died from the loss of blood caused by these wounds.
At trial, Cole tried to convince the jury that he should not be convicted of first-*325degree murder as a principal by arguing that the bleeding caused by the shoulder wound had not contributed in a significant way to the victim's death. To this purpose, Cole's attorney cross-examined the State's pathologist, Dr. Thompson, to suggest that the shoulder wound was largely insignificant. Now, Cole asserts that his attorney should also have introduced the testimony of Dr. Rogers to bolster this point.
But even if the jury believed that the shoulder wound did not contribute in any significant way to the victim's death, Cole would still be guilty of first-degree murder. The crime of first-degree murder requires proof of the defendant's intent to kill. Thus, when the jury found Cole guilty of first-degree murder, they necessarily found that when Cole participated in the armed assault on the occupants of the car, he acted with the intent to kill. And, because Cole participated equally in this assault (working together with his accomplice to fire more than a dozen bullets into the vehicle), Cole was accountable under AS 11.16.1102) for the conduct of his accomplice-that is, for the gunshots fired by his accomplice. Thus, even if none of Cole's bullets had struck the victim, Cole would still be properly convicted of first-degree murder. See Riley v. State, 60 P.3d 204 (Alaska App.2002); Knutson v. State, 736 P.2d 775, 780 (Alaska App.1987).
For this reason, 1 conclude that Cole's trial attorney's decision to refrain from calling Dr. Rogers could not have affected the outcome of the trial.