Harper v. Commonwealth

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed Tamara Harper’s convictions for complicity to murder and complicity to first-degree robbery. The court held that the jury instructions under KRS 502.020(1) improperly omitted the requirement that Harper intended to promote or facilitate the charged offenses. The court also addressed lesser-included complicity instructions, including potential instructions based on KRS 502.020(2), and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. For complicity liability under KRS 502.020(1), the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant specifically intended to promote or facilitate the commission of the charged offense. A jury instruction that omits that element is erroneous and constitutes reversible error.
2. The evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to infer that Harper intended to promote or facilitate Burden's intentional killing of Phillips; therefore, the convictions were not reversed for insufficient evidence.
3. The trial court should have instructed the jury on complicity to first-degree manslaughter because the evidence could support a finding that Burden intended to cause serious physical injury resulting in death and that Harper intended for Burden to act with that intent.
4. Complicity to second-degree manslaughter is not automatically precluded when the principal's conduct was intentional. Under KRS 502.020(2), the accomplice may be liable based on the accomplice's own wanton mental state, even if the principal acted intentionally, and the principal's mental state need not be proved.
5. The propriety of criminal-facilitation instructions could not be finally determined on the first-trial record because the evidence at retrial might differ; the issue was left for the trial court to determine on retrial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complicity-to-murder and complicity-to-first-degree-robbery jury instructions were erroneous because they omitted the requirement that Harper intended to promote or facilitate the charged offenses.
2. Whether the evidence was insufficient to permit the jury to infer that Harper possessed the required intent under KRS 502.020(1).
3. Whether the trial court was required to instruct on complicity to first-degree manslaughter and complicity to second-degree manslaughter as lesser-included offenses.
4. Whether Harper was entitled to criminal-facilitation instructions as lesser-included offenses.
5. Whether any other alleged errors required reversal.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded