Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia; December 8, 1998; Virginia; State Appellate Court
Lorenzo McLean was convicted of robbery and capital murder related to the death of William Jones, Jr., who was found severely beaten in a Norfolk park on January 1, 1995. An autopsy revealed multiple blunt force injuries, a stab wound, and a neck incision leading to his death. Testimony from Nathaniel Lindsey indicated that McLean, along with others, assaulted Jones after an altercation over accusations of homosexuality. They physically attacked him, threw a bicycle on him, and subsequently discussed killing him. Lindsey witnessed McLean and another individual dropping a concrete splash block on Jones' head and later breaking a bottle to stab him. Other witnesses, including Sharee McCorkle, testified to seeing McLean involved in the assault, noting he had blood on his shoes afterward. McLean denied any involvement and claimed memory loss regarding the event. During jury deliberations, the jury asked questions regarding 'intent,' prompting the trial judge to provide instructions on 'concert of action.' McLean appealed, arguing this instruction was erroneous, leading to the reversal of his convictions and a remand for a new trial.
The trial judge declined to provide a legal definition of "intent" but sought clarification from the jury on their inquiry regarding whether one member's intent in a group act applies to all. The jury reformulated their question, seeking to understand the legal implications of collective intent in criminal acts. Over the objection of McLean’s counsel, the trial judge instructed the jury that if they found a concerted action leading to a crime, all participants are equally accountable, regardless of whether the crime was originally intended. McLean was subsequently convicted of capital murder and robbery, with a life sentence imposed for the murder conviction. Given McLean's status as a juvenile during the robbery, a life sentence for that offense was also applied.
The trial judge's obligation to instruct the jury is grounded in Rule 3A:16(a) and established case law, which emphasizes the necessity for the judge to fully address jury inquiries related to their duties. The jury's questions indicated they were seeking clarity on the definition of intent, a critical issue in the case. Prior to the jury's deliberation, the judge had outlined the elements necessary for a capital murder charge and robbery charge, emphasizing that intent must exist alongside the act of taking property, and that violence must occur concurrently with or before the taking. It was noted that intent may be inferred from the natural and probable consequences of one's actions.
During jury deliberations, the jury posed questions regarding the legal definition of "intent" and whether "intent" is collective. The trial judge did not address the first question and sought clarification on the second. Subsequently, the jury inquired whether the expressed intent of one group member applies to all when an act is performed, prompting the judge to introduce the concept of "concert of action" for the first time.
Legal precedent indicates that introducing a new theory via a supplemental jury instruction requires the parties to have the opportunity for argument on that theory, as failure to do so can result in unfair prejudice. Prior jury instructions had not covered "concert of action," nor had the jury inquired about it, indicating that its introduction during deliberations deprived the defendant, McLean, of the right to argue this principle's relevance to the case. The trial judge's duty is to provide complete and accurate information in response to jury inquiries, a standard that was not met in this instance.
Even if the judge's response regarding "concert of action" was legally accurate, it was incomplete and nonresponsive to the jury's specific questions about intent. This lack of clarity could mislead the jury regarding the law applicable to their deliberations. Consequently, the introduction of "concert of action" may have caused the jury to undervalue the importance of the intent inquiry, leading to a potential misunderstanding of the case’s legal principles. For these reasons, the convictions were reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
