## Facts

- Richard Riley and Edward Portalla attended a late-night bonfire gathering near Fairbanks, Alaska.
- Riley and Portalla each produced a firearm and fired multiple shots toward a group of people near the fire.
- Two individuals suffered serious physical injury, and several others were endangered.
- Physical and ballistic evidence could not determine which shooter fired the bullets that caused the serious injuries.
- The State charged Riley with two counts of first-degree assault (recklessly causing serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument) and six counts of third-degree assault.
- The prosecution proceeded on alternative theories: Riley was guilty either as a principal shooter or as an accomplice who intentionally aided or encouraged the gunfire.
- The trial court instructed the jury it could convict Riley on the first-degree assault counts as a principal or as an accomplice.
- The jury convicted Riley of both first-degree assault counts (on an accomplice theory) and all six third-degree assault counts.

## Issues

1. For a result-defined offense requiring recklessness as to serious physical injury, whether accomplice liability requires proof that the alleged accomplice intended the injurious result, or instead requires intent to promote or facilitate the dangerous conduct plus the offense’s required culpable mental state as to the result.
2. Whether the accomplice-liability jury instruction was plainly erroneous for permitting conviction without identifying which shooter’s bullets caused the victims’ serious injuries.

## Decision

- The Alaska Court of Appeals affirmed Riley’s convictions.
- The court held that when participants intentionally solicit, encourage, or assist each other in the underlying dangerous conduct, each may be held accountable for the resulting injury if each possesses the culpable mental state required for the substantive offense.
- The State was not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whose bullet inflicted the serious physical injuries where the evidence supported joint participation in the gunfire and recklessness as to the risk of serious injury.
- The accomplice-liability instruction was not plainly erroneous under Alaska law.

## Legal Principles

- For accomplice liability, the defendant must act with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense by soliciting, encouraging, or assisting another’s conduct.
- For result crimes defined by a non-purposeful mental state (such as recklessness), the accomplice need not specifically intend the prohibited result; the accomplice must (1) intentionally aid or encourage the conduct and (2) personally possess the culpable mental state the offense requires as to the result.
- In group wrongdoing where multiple actors jointly engage in the same dangerous conduct, liability for the harmful result does not depend on pinpointing which participant’s act was the physical cause, so long as the prohibited result occurred and the required mental states are proven for the participant charged.

## Conclusion

The court upheld convictions for reckless-result assault based on accomplice liability where two defendants jointly fired into a crowd, reasoning that the State need not identify the particular bullet that caused the serious injuries if the defendant intentionally participated in the gunfire and was reckless as to the risk of serious physical injury.


Riley v. State, 60 P.3d 204 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002)