Echols v. State
1991 Alas. App. LEXIS 75, 1991 WL 196767, 818 P.2d 691 (1991)
Rule of Law:
Under Alaska statute AS 11.16.110, to be convicted as an accomplice, the State must prove that the defendant acted with the specific intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense, which requires intending the specific criminal result, rather than merely acting recklessly regarding that result.
Facts:
- The defendant, Arthur Echols, discovered her fourteen-year-old daughter, T.E., taking cookies from the kitchen against house rules.
- Arthur went to the bedroom to wake her husband, Melvin Echols, and brought him to the kitchen.
- Melvin screamed at T.E., punched her, threw her to the floor, and then retrieved an extension cord.
- Melvin beat T.E. with the extension cord for five to ten minutes while Arthur stood nearby washing dishes.
- During the beating, Arthur observed blood and mentioned it to Melvin, yet Melvin continued to beat the child for a few more minutes.
- Arthur subsequently kept T.E. home from school to hide the injuries, but T.E. eventually reported the abuse to school officials.
- T.E. suffered scars and fresh wounds on her back from the beating.
Procedural Posture:
- The State indicted Arthur Echols for assault in the first degree under a theory of accomplice liability for soliciting her husband's conduct.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial in the Superior Court.
- Arthur Echols requested a jury instruction stating that accomplice liability requires specific intent to promote the offense.
- The trial judge rejected the proposed instruction and instead instructed the jury that Echols could be convicted if she acted recklessly regarding the results of her husband's conduct.
- The jury convicted Arthur Echols of assault in the first degree.
- Arthur Echols appealed the conviction to the Alaska Court of Appeals, challenging the jury instructions.
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 the Alaska accomplice liability statute require the State to prove that an accomplice specifically intended for the victim to suffer serious physical injury, or is it sufficient to prove the accomplice acted recklessly regarding the risk of such injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Coats
Yes, the court held that the State must prove specific intent for accomplice liability. The court reasoned that the plain language of AS 11.16.110 requires an accomplice to act "with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense." Reviewing legislative history, the court noted that the statute was intended to codify prior Alaska case law, which required a "specific criminal intent to bring about the illegal end." The court explicitly rejected the lower standard found in the Model Penal Code, which allows for accomplice liability based on recklessness regarding results, observing that the Alaska legislature did not adopt that specific provision. Consequently, the court overruled its prior decision in Bowell v. State to the extent it allowed for a recklessness standard. Therefore, Arthur Echols could not be convicted as an accomplice to first-degree assault unless she specifically intended for T.E. to suffer serious physical injury.
Concurrence - Chief Judge Bryner
Yes, the Chief Judge agreed that under the accomplice liability statute, specific intent is required. However, the concurrence emphasized that the State made a tactical error by charging Echols only as an accomplice. Had the State charged her as a principal, they would not have needed to prove specific intent; they only would have needed to prove she recklessly caused injury by asking her husband to discipline the child while disregarding the substantial risk of harm. Because the jury was only instructed on the accomplice theory, the conviction had to be reversed.
Analysis:
This case is significant because it clarifies the strict mens rea (mental state) requirement for accomplice liability in Alaska, setting it apart from jurisdictions that follow the Model Penal Code's broader approach. The decision establishes that a person cannot be an accomplice to a specific-result crime (like assault causing serious injury) merely by being reckless or negligent about the outcome; they must actively desire that outcome. This creates a higher burden of proof for prosecutors charging accomplices. However, the concurrence highlights a crucial workaround: prosecutors can simply charge the defendant as a principal who recklessly "caused" the result through their actions (like soliciting a violent person), thereby bypassing the strict intent requirement of the accomplice statute.
