Commonwealth v. Potts - 388 Pa. Super. 593, 566 A.2d 287 (1989)

Rule:

To be convicted as an accomplice of the crime of murder of the first degree, a two-step analysis is required. The first step is to consider whether an accused possessed the requisite criminal intent. An accomplice's conduct need not result in the ultimate criminal offense. Rather, an accomplice is equally criminally liable for the acts of another if he acts with the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense, and agrees or aids or attempts to aid such other person in either planning or committing the criminal offense.

Facts:

In March 1980, appellant Ernest Potts and David Owens met and drove in a car together to the residence of the deceased, Michael Cunerd. This trip was being made to inquire into an alleged burglary of appellant’s apartment during which marijuana, various articles of jewelry, and cash had been stolen. The following day, the body of the deceased was discovered by an employee working near the area. Following defendant David Owens' arrest, appellant was thereafter arrested. Appellant’s arrest stemmed from defendant's statement to the police and additional information furnished by a friend of both defendants. At trial, the friend testified that he had had a telephone conversation with the appellant about two days before the killing. In that telephone conversation, appellant told him that his house got robbed that he knew the deceased did it, that marihuana, speed pills, and jewelry were stolen, and that appellant was going to kill the deceased. Appellant also testified at trial that, subsequent to the alleged burglary, defendant told him that the deceased had burglarized his apartment. The court of common pleas convicted appellant of murder in the first degree. Appellant challenged the judgment of sentence on his conviction, he contended that since his stated intention was to beat up the deceased, rather than to kill him, there was insufficient evidence to establish his intention to kill the deceased, as required for conviction of murder of the first degree. He likewise alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue:

Was the appellant’s conviction of murder in the first degree proper?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment of sentence and held that the jury was free to disbelieved the portion of appellant's confession that suggested that he only intended to hurt the decedent and not to facilitate his death. The court further held that the failure of appellant's counsel to object to the trial judge's mention of the accomplice liability theory was legally sound, thus, was not of arguable merit. Moreover, the court found that witness testimony and inconsistencies in the appellant's statements and trial testimony were sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant facilitated or promoted decedent's death. Although the court held that the failure of appellant's counsel to request a cautionary instruction on the evidence that established the presence of drugs in appellant's home was of arguable merit and satisfied the first element of an ineffective assistance claim and was not designed to effectuate appellant's interest, which satisfied the second element of the ineffective assistance claim, the court ruled that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel because the jury would have convicted appellant even if it had been given the cautionary instruction.