State v. Soares
815 P.2d 428 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To be criminally liable as an accomplice, a person must act with the specific intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense; a jury instruction that omits this essential mental state element is a misstatement of the law.
Facts:
- On August 22, 1989, Holiday Mart store detective Mitchell Tam observed Ronald Soares and Hollie Suratt placing cartons of cigarettes into a shopping cart.
- Tam then saw Soares place the cigarettes into a large handbag.
- Suratt carried the handbag as both she and Soares left the store without paying for the merchandise.
- Outside the store, Tam identified himself and attempted to place Soares under a citizen's arrest for shoplifting.
- During a struggle with Tam, Soares' head struck Tam in the mouth, causing Tam to release him, and Soares fled.
- Meanwhile, another store clerk, Conway Marks, attempted to block Suratt's path as instructed by Tam.
- After failing to push Marks out of the way, Suratt tricked him into looking away and then fled the scene with the handbag.
- A few minutes later, Suratt returned to the Holiday Mart without the handbag or the stolen cigarettes and was arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald Soares was charged with Robbery in the Second Degree against Mitchell Tam and Theft in the Fourth Degree.
- Hollie Suratt was separately charged with Robbery in the Second Degree against Conway Marks.
- The State's motion to consolidate the defendants' cases for a single trial was granted by the trial court.
- Following a consolidated jury trial, both Soares and Suratt were convicted of Robbery in the Second Degree.
- Soares and Suratt (appellants) separately appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court of Hawaii, where the cases were consolidated for argument and opinion.
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 on accomplice liability that omits the required mental state of intending to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense constitute a reversible error?
Opinions:
Majority - Lum, C.J.
Yes. An accomplice liability instruction that fails to include the essential mens rea element of intent misstates the law and requires reversal. The trial court's instruction implied that mere presence and participation in any act of the crime were sufficient for accomplice liability. However, Hawaii Revised Statutes § 702-222 requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant acted with the specific 'intention of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense.' By omitting this element, the instruction unconstitutionally relieved the State of its burden of proof. The court also found it was improper to give an accomplice instruction at all, as the defendants were charged separately for distinct acts of force against different victims (Soares against Tam, Suratt against Marks), which failed to provide adequate notice of the legal theory against them.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental principle that criminal liability requires a guilty mind (mens rea) in addition to a wrongful act (actus reus). By invalidating an accomplice liability instruction that omitted the element of intent, the court safeguards against convictions based on mere presence or association with a criminal act. The ruling serves as a critical precedent for ensuring that jury instructions accurately reflect all statutory elements of a crime, particularly the required mental state, so the prosecution's burden of proof is not improperly lowered. Furthermore, it highlights the due process requirement that defendants receive clear notice of the charges against them, including the theory of liability the prosecution intends to pursue.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Soares