Court Opinion

ID: 9713706
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:20:29.647523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:20.039813
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring.
Appellant was charged along with Grove and Small with the murder of Wilks. The language of this instrument supports the giving of an instruction on manslaughter. Reinbold v. State (1990), Ind., 555 N.E.2d 463. He was entitled to a manslaughter instruction if there was adequate evidence that he acted in sudden heat. I agree that there was not adequate evidence that appellant acted in sudden heat.
The trial court gave an instruction informing the jury that it could find appellant guilty of the murder of Wilks as an accomplice. The State was entitled to this instruction because there was adequate evidence from which the jury might reasonably infer that appellant fired no shot and was merely going along and aiding and abetting Grove. The basis of liability for this instruction was that appellant was an accessory in the commission of the murder of Wilks, and that Grove was the principal. Thomas v. State (1987), Ind., 510 N.E.2d 651. If, as claimed by appellant, there was adequate evidence that Groves, the principal under this theory, acted in sudden heat, I would agree with appellant that it would be error to refuse to give a manslaughter *1155instruction for consideration by the jury. I agree however, that there was not adequate evidence that Groves acted in sudden heat.