28 A.3d 1226
Md.2011Background
- Petitioner Enrique Pizzaro Silva was convicted by a jury in Baltimore County of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder.
- The State's witnesses included Salmeron (an admitted accomplice) and Castillo and Flores (who denied involvement).
- Petitioner asked the court to instruct that Castillo and Flores were accomplices as a matter of law, requiring corroboration; the court granted for Salmeron but not for Castillo or Flores.
- The trial court held Castillo and Flores’s status as accomplices was a jury question due to conflicting evidence.
- At trial, the jury was given an accomplice instruction for Salmeron and a “may have been” instruction for Castillo and Flores; the jury convicted Petitioner on both counts.
- Appellant challenged on appeal that Castillo and Flores should have been accomplices as a matter of law; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were Castillo and Flores accomplices as a matter of law? | Silva contends Castillo and Flores knowingly participated as accomplices. | State argues evidence allowable for jury determination due to inconsistencies. | No; not accomplices as a matter of law. |
| Did the trial court err in giving conditional accomplice instructions to the jury for Castillo and Flores? | Instruction should have declared them accomplices as a matter of law. | Evidence supported jury determination given inconsistencies. | Correct to submit to jury; not error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Raines v. State, 326 Md. 582 (1992) (definition of accomplice and requisite intent)
- Foster v. State, 263 Md. 388 (1971) (presence and conduct sufficient for accomplice liability; jury fact-finder role)
- Trovato v. State, 36 Md.App. 183 (1977) (three bands of complicity: law, jury, and mixed predisposition)
- In re Anthony W., 388 Md. 251 (2005) (clear and decisive proof standard to take complicity from jury)
- Bishop v. State, 39 Md.App. 384 (1978) (directing when jury may decide accomplice status)
- Basch v. People, 36 N.Y.2d 154 (1975) (lookout role and accomplice determination history)