Rico Jermaine Rose V State Of Arkansas

Key Facts

Issues

• The appellant argues the circuit court erred by denying his motion for directed verdict on the second count of theft of property. Rose contends there was insufficient evidence he was an accomplice to the theft of Wyrick's Toyota Corolla since he left the jail alone and went in a different direction than the other escapees who stole the vehicle. The court found the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence that Rose aided and facilitated in the theft of both vehicles.
• The appellant argues the circuit court abused its discretion by overruling his objection to the prosecutor's voir dire examination regarding questions about whether jurors could consider choking and causing loss of consciousness as serious physical injury. The State maintains the court sustained the objection by directing the prosecutor to rephrase, and the appellant did not seek an admonition or mistrial at trial, thus cannot demonstrate prejudice.

Holdings

• The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the appellant's convictions for first-degree battery against a correctional facility employee, second-degree battery against a correctional facility employee, first-degree escape, and two counts of theft of property. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing voir dire questioning regarding serious physical injury, and that substantial evidence supported the accomplice liability conviction for theft of the Toyota Corolla despite the appellant's separate escape in a different vehicle.
• The court held that voir dire questioning about serious physical injury was permissible. The circuit court had broad discretion over voir dire conduct, and the appellant did not seek an admonition or mistrial, so he cannot demonstrate prejudice from the questioning.
• The court rejected the appellant's argument that accomplice liability must end once escapees left the jail in different vehicles. The jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence that the appellant aided and facilitated the theft of both vehicles, and Arkansas law makes no distinction between the criminal liability of a principal and an accomplice.

Remedies

Legal Principles

• Accomplice liability under Arkansas Code Ann. § 5-2-402(2) and § 5-2-403(a)(1)-(2): A person is criminally liable for the conduct of another when they are an accomplice. When two persons assist one another in a crime, each is an accomplice and criminally liable for the conduct of both. A participant cannot disclaim responsibility for not personally taking part in every act that made up the crime as a whole. The law makes no distinction between principal and accomplice liability.
• Voir dire examination purposes under Ark. R. Crim. P. 32.2: The purpose is to discover basis for challenges for cause and gain knowledge for intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges, but does not include attempting to commit jurors to a decision in advance. Prospective jurors may be questioned about their mental attitude toward certain types of evidence, such as circumstantial evidence. The circuit court has broad discretion over voir dire conduct.
• The court addressed accomplice liability arguments first on appeal due to double-jeopardy considerations, establishing that a defendant cannot escape accomplice liability for the theft of a vehicle simply because they escaped in a different vehicle than their accomplices.

Precedent Name

• Stone v. State
• Conway v. State
• Isom v. State

Cited Statute

Judge Name

• David W. Talley, Jr.
• Robert J. Gladwin

Passage Text

• The purpose of voir dire examination is to discover whether there is any basis for challenges for cause and to gain knowledge for the intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges. Ark. R. Crim. P. 32.2; Sanders v. State, 278 Ark. 420, 646 S.W.2d 14 (1983). Such purpose, however, does not include an attempt to commit the jurors to a decision in advance. Nutt v. State, 312 Ark. 247, 848 S.W.2d 427 (1993). Additionally, 'prospective jurors may not be questioned with respect to a hypothetical set of facts expected to be proved at trial and thus commit the jury to a decision in advance, but . . . they may be questioned . . . about their mental attitude toward certain types of evidence, such as circumstantial evidence.' Hobbs v. State, 277Ark. 271, 275-76, 641 S.W.2d 9, 12 (1982).
• Accordingly, we find no merit to Rose's argument that because he left the jail alone and, once outside, went the opposite direction than the others,'the accomplice liability must end.' As set forth above, this argument is contradictory to Arkansas law. The jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence that Rose aided and facilitated in the theft of both vehicles; he cannot escape accomplice liability for the theft of the Toyota Corolla simply because escaped in a different vehicle.
• When two persons assist one another in the commission of a crime, each is an accomplice and criminally liable for the conduct of both. Jackson v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 330, 552 S.W.3d 55. A person is an accomplice of another person if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he or she solicits, advises, encourages, coerces, aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid in planning or committing the offense. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-403(a)(1)-(2) (Repl. 2024).