Baker v. Alaska
905 P.2d 479 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In jurisdictions that have statutorily abrogated the distinction between principals and accessories, a defendant charged as a principal is on notice that they may be convicted under a theory of accomplice liability, and vice versa.
Facts:
- Donald L. Baker, John Stanfill, and Jason Frazier planned to obtain free pizzas by robbing a delivery person.
- Stanfill telephoned a Pizza Hut, ordered pizzas, and directed the delivery to a neighboring apartment building.
- The three men positioned themselves to ambush the delivery person, James Seymour; Baker wore a dark blue ski mask while Stanfill and Frazier wore bandannas.
- When Seymour arrived and turned to leave after being unable to find the customer, a man in a dark blue ski mask emerged from under a set of stairs and struck him.
- After Seymour fell and dropped the pizzas, another person grabbed them, and all three men fled.
- Seymour described his assailant as a light-complexioned black male wearing a ski mask but was unable to make a positive identification.
- After the robbery, the three men went to Stanfill's apartment to eat the pizzas.
- Stanfill's mother, having heard about the robbery nearby, returned to her apartment, found the men with the pizzas, and ordered them to leave.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Alaska prosecuted Donald L. Baker for second-degree robbery in the Fairbanks superior court, a trial court.
- During a discussion about jury instructions, the prosecutor stated that the State's theory was that Baker was guilty as a principal.
- The trial court, without objection from Baker's defense counsel, provided the jury with an instruction on accomplice liability.
- The jury convicted Baker of second-degree robbery.
- Baker, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Alaska, the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does instructing a jury on accomplice liability constitute plain error when the prosecution had stated its theory that the defendant acted as a principal, in a jurisdiction where the legal distinction between principals and accessories has been abolished?
Opinions:
Majority - Mannheimer, Judge
No. It was not plain error for the trial court to instruct the jury on accomplice liability because Alaska law has long abrogated the common-law distinction between principals and accessories. For nearly a century, Alaska statutes have mandated that all persons concerned in the commission of a felony are to be indicted, tried, and punished as principals. Precedent such as Scharver v. State firmly establishes that an accused indicted as a principal can be convicted upon evidence showing they only aided and abetted. Therefore, an indictment charging a defendant with personally committing a crime provides sufficient notice that they may also be convicted under a theory of accomplice liability. The prosecutor's statement at trial about their preferred theory did not limit the legal theories available, especially where the defense did not object and the facts of the case—involving multiple actors performing different parts of the crime—necessitated an accomplice liability instruction for the jury to properly evaluate guilt.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the modern trend in criminal law of eliminating formalistic common-law distinctions between principals and accessories. It solidifies the principle that substance prevails over form, meaning a defendant cannot escape conviction by arguing about their specific role in a crime so long as their participation is proven. This gives prosecutors flexibility to adapt their arguments to the evidence presented at trial without running afoul of notice requirements. The case serves as a strong precedent that an indictment for the substantive offense inherently includes the charge of being an accomplice to it, simplifying prosecutions of crimes involving multiple participants.
Unlock the full brief for Baker v. Alaska