Background
Leearthur Taylor was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree reckless homicide, with a dangerous weapon, as a party to the crime for aiding and abetting his uncle, Larence Thomas, in the shooting death of Malik Moss outside Taylor’s mother’s apartment in Dane County.
Surveillance video showed Taylor waiting near the apartment with a shotgun before a fight began between Moss and Taylor’s brother. Thomas then shot Moss repeatedly. After the shooting, Taylor advanced toward the wounded Moss and pointed his shotgun at him as Moss tried to flee. The State also introduced evidence that Taylor had said the day before that he would kill Moss after Moss had punched him.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the conviction and denial of Taylor’s postconviction motion. It held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Taylor intentionally aided and abetted Thomas’s first-degree reckless homicide, either by assisting or by being ready and willing to assist Thomas while Thomas knew of that willingness.
The court also rejected Taylor’s ineffective-assistance claims. Counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for declining to introduce additional evidence about Moss’s alleged violence, failing to object to the omitted oral instruction language, declining to seek second-degree reckless homicide as a lesser offense, or emphasizing defense of others instead of self-defense in closing. The written instructions and the instructions viewed as a whole correctly conveyed the State’s burden to disprove defense of others.
Key Takeaways
- Video evidence and surrounding circumstances supported an inference that Taylor participated in a planned armed confrontation and stood ready to assist the shooter.
- A defendant may aid and abet a reckless homicide by knowingly assisting, or being ready and willing to assist, the person committing the reckless crime.
- An inadvertent omission from oral instructions did not warrant relief where the written instructions and the charge as a whole accurately stated the State’s burden of proof.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deferential standard governing sufficiency challenges: an appellate court will uphold a verdict when reasonable inferences from the evidence support it, even amid conflicting testimony.
It also underscores that ineffective-assistance claims require both deficient performance and prejudice, and that jury instructions are assessed as a whole rather than by isolating one omitted sentence.