Riley v. State
60 P.3d 204 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish accomplice liability for an offense defined by an unintended result, the state must prove the defendant (1) acted with the intent to promote or facilitate the principal's underlying criminal conduct, and (2) possessed the same culpable mental state (e.g., recklessness) regarding the prohibited result as is required by the statute defining the offense.
Facts:
- Richard L. Riley and another man, Edward F. Portalla, were near a bonfire on the Tanana River.
- Riley and Portalla opened fire on a crowd of young people who were socializing around the bonfire.
- Two individuals in the crowd were struck by bullets and suffered serious physical injuries.
- A subsequent ballistics analysis could not determine which man's weapon fired the specific shots that wounded the two victims.
- One bullet recovered from a victim was too deformed to be matched, and the other bullet passed through the second victim and was never recovered.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard L. Riley was indicted on two counts of first-degree assault and six counts of third-degree assault.
- At trial in the Superior Court (court of first instance), the jury was instructed on theories of both principal and accomplice liability for the first-degree assault charges.
- The jury convicted Riley of all eight charges, finding him guilty as an accomplice on the two counts of first-degree assault.
- Riley, the appellant, appealed his two first-degree assault convictions to the Alaska Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court), arguing the jury instruction on accomplice liability was legally flawed.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Alaska's complicity statute, must the state prove that an accomplice intended the prohibited result of a crime, such as serious physical injury, even when the crime itself only requires a reckless mental state regarding that result?
Opinions:
Majority - Mannheimer, Judge.
No. A defendant can be convicted as an accomplice to a crime involving an unintended result without proof that the accomplice intended that result. To establish accomplice liability, the state must prove the defendant intended to promote or facilitate the underlying criminal conduct, and that the defendant acted with the same culpable mental state regarding the resulting harm (in this case, recklessness) as is required to convict a principal. The court explicitly overrules its prior decision in Echols v. State, which incorrectly required an accomplice to have acted with the intent to cause the prohibited result, even for crimes of recklessness or negligence. The Echols rule was a minority view that departed from the common law and the proper interpretation of the Model Penal Code, upon which Alaska's statute is based. Adhering to Echols would create absurd results, such as allowing two co-participants in a reckless shooting to escape liability for manslaughter if it could not be proven which one fired the fatal shot. The correct interpretation is that the statutory phrase 'intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense' refers to the accomplice's intent regarding the principal's conduct (the actus reus), not the unintended result.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters the law of accomplice liability in Alaska by overruling the precedent set in Echols v. State. It aligns Alaska with the majority of jurisdictions and the Model Penal Code's approach, making it easier to prosecute co-defendants for crimes of recklessness or negligence. The holding clarifies that an accomplice's culpability for a result is measured by their own mental state concerning that result, not by a heightened requirement of intent. This prevents defendants from escaping liability for the foreseeable, unintended consequences of joint criminal conduct simply because the identity of the principal actor cannot be definitively established.
Unlock the full brief for Riley v. State