Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D, Stanfill, and Frazier, decided to get some free pizzas by robbing the delivery person when he came to deliver their order. Stanfill, testifying under a grant of immunity, admitted taking part in the robbery. He described the planning and the role each person in the crime. Stanfill phoned in the pizza order and that he told the restaurant to deliver the pizzas to a neighboring apartment building. The three then stationed themselves near the entrance to this neighboring building. Stanfill and Frazier had bandannas over their faces for concealment; Baker wore a dark blue ski mask. The delivery person, Seymour, arrived and was unable to find the person who had placed the order. Seymour started to leave, and the three made their move. Seymour was struck by a man who emerged from beneath a set of stairs. He described his assailant as a light-complexioned black male wearing a one-holed dark blue ski mask and dark gloves. This, of course, was D who performed the robbery itself based on Stanfill’s testimony. Seymour fell to the ground, dropping the pizzas. After the third blow, Seymour shouted to his assailant that he could take the pizzas. Someone knelt down, took the pizzas, and fled the building. Seymour was never able to positively identify the person who hit him. Frazier as part of a plea bargain also testified to taking part in the robbery. D did not testify at trial. Through cross-examination of Seymour, Stanfill, and Frazier, and in final argument, D's attorney suggested that D had not participated in the robbery. It was suggested that Stanfill and Frazier might be lying about D's involvement in order to shield an unidentified friend and in order to obtain favorable treatment from the State. The jury was instructed with respect to accomplice liability and D made no objection. D was convicted, and D now disputes the accomplice liability instruction.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co