Mudge v. State

• Decision Date: 09 September 1988
• Docket Number: No. A-2129,A-2129
• Citation: 760 P.2d 1046
• Parties: Russell L. MUDGE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.
• Court: Alaska Court of Appeals

Page 1046

760 P.2d 1046

Russell L. MUDGE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. A-2129.

Court of Appeals of Alaska.

Sept. 9, 1988.

James M. Hackett, James M. Hackett, Inc., Fairbanks, for appellant.

David Mannheimer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of Sp. Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and Grace Berg Schaible, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before BRYNER, C.J., and COATS and SINGLETON, JJ.

BRYNER, Chief Judge.

Russell L. Mudge, Jr., was indicted for one count of interference with official proceedings and one count of assault in the second degree. AS 11.56.510(a)(1)(C); AS 11.41.210(a)(1). Mudge filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the state presented insufficient evidence. Superior Court Judge Mary E. Greene denied the motion. A jury convicted Mudge on both counts. On appeal, Mudge renews his claim of insufficient evidence to support his indictment. We affirm.

The facts are undisputed. Before the grand jury, the state presented evidence to establish that Mudge, an inmate at the Fairbanks Correctional Center, aided another inmate, James Moran, in assaulting a third inmate, Richard Clark, in retaliation for Clark's having "snitched" on Moran. The state primarily relied on the testimony of three inmates who witnessed Moran's assault on Richard Clark. They testified that they observed Moran pour scalding water on Clark, with Mudge's assistance.

On appeal, Mudge renews his argument that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment for interference with official proceedings. ¹ Mudge's argument is twofold. He first appears to argue that the state failed to establish the requisite mental state for accomplice liability. Mudge argues that the state must prove that he shared Moran's motivation for assaulting Clark. Mudge alternatively argues that even if the state only needed to prove that he was aware of Moran's purpose, it failed to present sufficient evidence establishing his knowledge.

We first address Mudge's argument that the state needed to prove that Mudge shared Moran's reason for assaulting Clark and acted with the intent to retaliate against Clark because of Clark's participation in an official proceeding. Alaska Statute 11.16.110(2) provides in relevant part:

Legal accountability based upon the conduct of another: Complicity.

A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another constituting an offense if

....

(2) with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense, that person

.... (B) aids or abets the other in planning or committing the offense[.]

To determine the mens rea required for accomplice liability under AS 11.16.110, this court has previously relied on the Commentary to the Model Penal Code. See Bowell v. State, 728 P.2d 1220, 1222 (Alaska App.1986). The Commentary states in relevant part:

Subsection (3)(a) requires that the actor have the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, i.e., that he have as his conscious objective the bringing about of conduct that the Code has declared to be criminal. This is not to say that he must know of the criminality of the conduct; there is no more reason here to require knowledge of the criminal law than there is with the principal actor. But he must have the purpose to promote or facilitate the particular conduct that forms the basis for the charge, and thus he will not be liable for conduct that does not fall within this purpose.

Model Penal Code Part I, Art. 2 § 2.06 and commentary at 310-11 (1985) (footnote omitted). The commentary only requires that the accomplice know of the principal's intention and act with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the principal's criminal aim.

In Shindle v. State, 731 P.2d 582, 586 (Alaska App.1987), this court decided that in order for a supplier of cocaine to be criminally liable as an accomplice for the subsequent sale of cocaine by the person supplied, the state only needed to establish that the supplier was aware of the buyer's plan to resell cocaine and acted with the intent to promote the buyer's plan. See also Bowell, 728 P.2d at 1222; State v. Hernandez, 61 Haw. 475, 605 P.2d 75, 79 (1980); State v. Fitzgerald, 14 Or.App. 361, 513 P.2d 817 (1973).

Here, the state did not need to prove that Mudge acted with the intent to retaliate against Clark because of Clark's participation in an official proceeding. Rather, in order for Mudge to be found liable as an accomplice, the state needed only to prove that Mudge intentionally aided Moran, knowing of Moran's criminal purpose.

It is clear that this is precisely what the state proved in this case, since the trial judge expressly instructed the jury on the correct mental state. After deliberations had commenced, the jury sent back a question to the judge:

In Count I, are we concerned with whether Mudge's intent was to retaliate against Clark because he was a witness, or whether Moran's intent was to retaliate against the witness?

The judge responded:

Mr. Moran must have intended to retaliate against a witness because of his participation in an official proceeding in order for the crime defined in Count I to have occurred.

In order to be held liable as a...