## Facts

- Amit Ranadey was shot in the back during a drug-related dispute; Sonu Sharma, Rajesh Vig, Anthony Barela, and Arthur Richardson were present.
- The State charged all four men with attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon; the cases were severed and Sharma was tried first.
- The prosecution proceeded on two alternative theories: (1) Sharma was the shooter, or (2) Sharma aided and abetted another person’s attempt to kill Ranadey.
- The day after the shooting, detectives contacted Sharma at work; Sharma agreed to accompany them to the police station and speak with them.
- Sharma initially denied involvement and provided an alibi involving time spent with Vig.
- Sharma later gave evolving accounts that included: a plan to attack Barela; a shift from using bats to using a gun after Richardson joined; and, eventually, an admission that the group intended to kill Ranadey once the plan changed.
- Ranadey testified he believed others intended to help him attack Barela and that he did not know the plan had changed.
- At trial, the identity of the shooter was not definitively established, making the aiding-and-abetting theory central.
- A jury convicted Sharma of attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon.

## Issues

1. Whether, for aiding and abetting attempted murder (a specific-intent offense), the jury must be instructed to find that the alleged aider and abettor had the specific intent to kill (or knew of and intended to facilitate the principal’s specific intent to kill).
2. Whether the district court’s aiding-and-abetting instructions erroneously permitted conviction based on a mental state less than the specific intent required for attempted murder.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court held that attempted murder is a specific-intent crime requiring proof of intent to kill.
- The court concluded the aiding-and-abetting instructions were legally deficient because they did not adequately require the specific intent to kill for accomplice liability.
- The court reversed Sharma’s conviction for attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Attempted murder requires proof of a specific intent to kill, not merely participation in dangerous conduct.
- Aiding and abetting a specific-intent crime requires a corresponding mens rea: the aider and abettor must share the specific intent required for the offense, or know of the principal’s specific intent and act with the purpose of facilitating that offense.
- Jury instructions on accomplice liability for specific-intent crimes must expressly connect the aider-and-abettor’s mental state to the specific intent element of the charged offense; instructions permitting conviction on lesser mental states are erroneous.

## Conclusion

The conviction was reversed because the jury was not properly instructed that aiding and abetting attempted murder requires proof that the defendant intended the victim’s death (or knowingly and purposefully assisted another’s intent to kill), and the case was remanded for proceedings consistent with that requirement.


Sharma v. State, 56 P.3d 868 (Nev. 2002)