State v. King

Summary

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for murder as an accessory and conspiracy to commit murder, including because the absence of charges against alleged accomplices did not undermine the verdict. Exercising supervisory authority, the court announced that defendants choosing a three-judge trial must be told that two judges may convict, unlike a twelve-member jury, which must be unanimous. Because the defendant was not so advised, the court reversed and ordered a new trial, while holding that presubmission deliberations by a three-judge panel are not constitutionally prohibited.