Ruben Rosales v. State of Indiana, 23 N.E.3d 8

On June 27, 2012 Ruben Rosales (age 18, Latin Kings) rode in a van with Donovan Ball; a nearby teen, Sergio Torres, was brutally struck in the head with a metal baseball bat and suffered life‑threatening brain injuries.
Rosales fled to a bus station the next day and was arrested; State charged him with class A attempted murder and class D criminal gang participation.
Trial court instructed correctly on direct attempted murder (requiring specific intent to kill) but also gave a generic accomplice‑liability instruction that did not state an accomplice must possess specific intent to kill when aiding an attempted murder.
The State’s closing repeatedly argued that specific intent to kill was not required for accomplice liability ("only has to prove that one person intended for death to occur"), and the verdict form did not indicate whether the jury convicted on direct or accomplice liability grounds.
Jury convicted Rosales of attempted murder; the Indiana Supreme Court found the accomplice instruction erroneous and, because of the State’s misstatements and the general verdict form, concluded the error was fundamental and prejudicial — reversing and remanding for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Rosales)	Held
Whether an accomplice‑liability instruction that omits the specific‑intent‑to‑kill requirement for attempted murder is fundamental error when jury could have relied on accomplice theory	The trial court’s correct direct‑liability instruction and strong evidence of guilt made the faulty accomplice instruction harmless; specific intent was conveyed elsewhere	The instruction allowed conviction as an accomplice without proof of specific intent to kill; general verdict form means we cannot tell which theory the jury used, creating possible prejudice	The omission was fundamental error here: accomplice liability for attempted murder requires proof the defendant acted with specific intent to kill; reversal and new trial ordered

Spradlin v. State, 569 N.E.2d 948 (Ind. 1991) (attempted murder instruction must require proof that defendant acted with intent to kill)
Hopkins v. State, 759 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. 2001) (when attempted murder is premised on accomplice liability, State must prove accomplice acted with specific intent to kill)
Bethel v. State, 730 N.E.2d 1242 (Ind. 2000) (elements supporting accomplice liability require specific intent where attempted murder is charged)
Williams v. State, 737 N.E.2d 734 (Ind. 2000) (holding instruction using "knowingly" or "knowingly or intentionally" for attempted murder mens rea is fundamentally erroneous)
Thomas v. State, 827 N.E.2d 1131 (Ind. 2005) (discussing when surplus or imprecise instructions are harmless where all elements of one theory were correctly presented to jury)