Holland v. State
280 N.W.2d 288, 1979 Wisc. LEXIS 2128, 91 Wis. 2d 134 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict is not violated when a jury finds the defendant guilty as a party to a crime without unanimously agreeing on the specific theory of participation—whether as a direct actor, an aider and abettor, or a conspirator.
Facts:
- David Holland and James Hoppe entered an apartment shared by Mary Jans and Lynn Westbrook and locked the doors.
- Holland forced Jans to perform sex acts in the living room while Hoppe was in the bedroom with Westbrook.
- Jans heard Westbrook scream twice from the bedroom.
- After Hoppe left the bedroom, Holland entered it.
- Hoppe testified that he later saw Holland kicking and jumping on something in the bedroom.
- Holland claimed he found Westbrook having breathing difficulties and tried to clear her throat.
- Westbrook died a week later from irreversible brain damage due to lack of oxygen.
Procedural Posture:
- Holland was charged in circuit court with first-degree murder, party to a crime.
- The trial court instructed the jury on the three alternative modes of liability under the party to a crime statute but did not require the jury to be unanimous as to the mode.
- A jury convicted Holland of second-degree murder, party to a crime.
- Holland appealed his conviction to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals held that the trial court's failure to give a unanimity instruction on the mode of participation was prejudicial error, vacated the conviction, and remanded for a new trial.
- The State of Wisconsin petitioned the Supreme Court of Wisconsin for review of the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 a jury instruction that allows a conviction under a 'party to a crime' statute, without requiring the jury to unanimously agree on the specific mode of participation, violate a defendant's right to a unanimous verdict under the Wisconsin Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - William G. Callow, J.
No. A jury instruction that allows for conviction as a party to a crime without requiring unanimity on the theory of participation does not violate the defendant's right to a unanimous verdict. The 'party to a crime' statute was enacted to abolish the common law distinctions between principals and accessories, creating a single offense of being 'concerned in the commission of a crime.' The alternative modes of participation—direct commission, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy—are not separate, distinct offenses but are merely different means of committing the single underlying crime. Unanimity is required for the ultimate issue of the defendant’s guilt or innocence of the crime charged, not on the alternative means by which the crime was committed. Requiring unanimity on the specific manner of participation would frustrate the justice system and allow guilty parties to escape accountability because jurors could not agree on a nonessential detail, even when all agreed the defendant was a participant in the crime.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that accomplice liability statutes treat various forms of participation as conceptually equivalent means of committing a single offense, rather than as distinct crimes. It lowers the prosecution's burden by removing the need to prove a specific theory of participation to all jurors, as long as all jurors are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a culpable participant under at least one of the statutory theories. This approach prevents hung juries based on disagreements over the defendant's precise role and reinforces the legislative intent to treat all parties 'concerned in the commission of a crime' as equally liable. The case is significant for its practical impact on jury instructions and prosecutorial strategy in cases involving multiple defendants or unclear roles.
Unlock the full brief for Holland v. State