## Facts

- AB&M Enterprises, Inc. operated the Rumrunners Old Towne Bar and Grill in downtown Anchorage, Alaska.
- A patron, Johnny Brown, became unruly and assaulted Rumrunners security guard Murville Lampkin.
- Other security staff subdued and handcuffed Brown.
- Lampkin and his supervisor, George Damassiotis (Rumrunners’ head of security), decided to take Brown to the bar’s basement security office.
- As Lampkin and Brown entered an elevator for the trip to the basement, Damassiotis allegedly told Lampkin words to the effect of “Go for it,” or “There are no cameras in here; he is all yours.”
- Lampkin then punched Brown in the face without warning, fracturing the orbital bone around Brown’s left eye and causing an injury that required surgical repair with an implant.
- The State charged Lampkin (as the person who struck Brown) and Damassiotis (as the person who encouraged the strike) with fourth-degree assault.
- The State also charged AB&M with fourth-degree assault under Alaska’s corporate criminal-liability statute, AS 11.16.130, seeking to attribute the employees’ conduct to the corporation.
- The jury convicted AB&M, Lampkin, and Damassiotis. AB&M appealed, challenging the corporate-liability instructions used to convict the corporation.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court misstated AS 11.16.130 by instructing (including during deliberations) that a crime is “solicited by the corporation” if any officer or employee solicited it.
2. Whether the trial court’s instructions otherwise allowed the jury to convict AB&M without finding the statutory connection required for corporate liability—either that the assault was committed within the scope of an agent’s employment and in behalf of the corporation, or that the corporation itself solicited, ratified, or adopted the offense.
3. Whether the instructional errors required reversal where the jury returned a general verdict that could have rested on a legally incorrect theory of corporate liability.

## Decision

- The Alaska Court of Appeals reversed AB&M’s fourth-degree assault conviction and remanded.
- The court held that the jury instructions improperly broadened corporate liability under AS 11.16.130 by equating “solicited by the corporation” with solicitation by any officer or employee.
- Because the jury received an incorrect legal standard on a key element and returned a general verdict, the conviction could not stand when the verdict may have rested on the incorrect theory.
- The court treated the problem as plain, fundamental instructional error affecting the validity of the corporate conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Under AS 11.16.130(a)(1), a corporation may be convicted of an offense committed through the conduct of an “agent” only if the State proves one of two statutory paths:
  - the agent’s conduct was within the scope of the agent’s employment **and** done in behalf of the corporation; or
  - the conduct was solicited, later ratified, or later adopted by the corporation.
- “Agent” for these purposes includes directors, officers, employees, and other persons authorized to act in behalf of the corporation, but corporate guilt still requires the additional statutory link in AS 11.16.130(a)(1)(A) or (B).
- “Solicited by the corporation” is not established merely because an officer or employee urged another person to commit the offense; the jury must be instructed on what makes a solicitation attributable to the corporate entity under the statute.
- Jury instructions must state the statutory elements accurately and must not convert corporate criminal liability into automatic liability based solely on employee status.
- When a general verdict may rest on an invalid legal theory submitted to the jury, reversal is required unless the error is shown to be harmless; an instruction that removes or dilutes an element of corporate liability is not harmless where the jury could have relied on that mistaken route to convict.

## Conclusion

AB&M Enterprises, Inc. v. State of Alaska, 389 P.3d 863 (2016), reversed a corporation’s fourth-degree assault conviction arising from a security supervisor’s alleged encouragement of an employee’s punch to a handcuffed patron because the jury was told that a crime is “solicited by the corporation” whenever any officer or employee solicits it, a definition that misstates AS 11.16.130 and allowed the jury to convict AB&M under an impermissibly broad theory of corporate criminal liability.
