Court Opinion

ID: 9647747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:49:11.570681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:52.918489
License: Public Domain

Conley Byrd, Justice, dissenting. I think the appellant was entitled to his instruction embodying his affirmative defense pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-305(2) (Ark. Crim. Code). That statute provides: “It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for an offense respecting which the liability of the defendant is based on the conduct of another person that the defendant terminates his complicity prior to the commission of the offense and: (a) wholly deprives his complicity of effectiveness in the commission of the offense; or (b) . . . (c) • • •” In the commentary the committee in drafting the statute stated: “Subsection (2) provides an affirmative defense. One who has already engaged in conduct sufficient to create accomplice liability upon the occurrence of the offense may in the time interval before its commission avoid liability, but only in the explicitly designated fashions set out disjunctively by 2(a) through (c).” To me the instruction given by the Court never made that distinction to the jury. The instruction upon which the majority relies is as follows: “The defendant is accused of murder, not that he actually fired the shots that took the life of the deceased, but that he aided and abetted the person who did. The defendant would be criminally liable for the conduct of Larry Hutcherson if he were an accessory of Larry Hutcherson in the killing of Ron Brooks. A person is an accessory of another person in the commission of an offense if, for the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he aided the person in committing that particular offense. In other words, if the defendant was present with the intention and purpose of promoting o.r facilitating the killing of Ron Brooks and aided Larry Hutcherson in killing Ron Brooks then the defendant would be an accessory. If the defendant merely happened to be present without any intention of aiding and abetting Larry Hutcherson in killing Ron Brooks, he would not be guilty of anything. Before you can find Edward Butler was aiding and abetting in the killing, you must find that he was acting in concert with Larry Hutcherson for the purpose of killing Ron Brooks and that he actually aided in the killing. If you find that the defendant was not present for the purpose of aiding, abetting or assisting Larry Hutcherson in killing the deceased then the defendant would not be responsible for the murder of the decedent and you must acquit him. In addition to proving the defendant was present, aided and abetted Larry Hutcherson in killing Ron Brooks, and that the defendant committed a voluntary act with that purpose in mind, the State must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of the crime for which he is charged relating to his state of mind. In order to make it perfectly clear, the State must prove all of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. That the defendant and Larry Hutcherson acting in concert and in the furtherance of a common objective or purpose intended to kill Ron Brooks. 2. That the defendant was present and did aid Larry Hutcherson in killing Ron Brooks pursuant to a - common objective. 3. That the defendant did in fact aid or attempt to aid Larry Hutcherson in killing Ron Brooks and that his actions were the result of premeditation and deliberation and that by his acts he specifically intended to effectuate the death of Ron Brooks.” For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent. Holt, J., joins in this dissent.