dissenting.
I must dissent vigorously from the majority’s interpretation of the trial judge’s jury instruction. There is nothing in that language to suggest that it is in conflict with the holding in Commonwealth v. Bachert, 499 Pa. 398, 406, 453 A.2d 931, 935 (1982).
The fallacy in the majority’s argument lies in its easy conclusion that the “jury instruction allowed the jury to reach a first-degree murder verdict with no finding of the requisite mental state of ‘specific intent to kill’ on the part of the accomplice/appellant.” (Maj. opinion, p. 963). Standing alone, the statement is correct. Its application is easy when the identities of the actual killer and accomplice are known. In *203that circumstance, it is indeed incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the mens rea of each actor.
Here, of course, that identification was absent. We do not know which actor struck the mortal blow. What we do know, however, is that an intentional killing did take place and that both actors were present at the scene in perpetration of a crime. It must follow logically that at least one of them did it and that one had to be the accomplice of the other.
In this context, the problem becomes one of identification. The problem is not new to our law because cases hold clearly that under such circumstances the Commonwealth need not identify the actual perpetrators even in specific intent crimes. Both could be determined by a jury to have a shared intent to commit the crime.
These same circumstances were addressed by this Court in several previous cases including, especially Commonwealth v. Bradley, 481 Pa. 223, 392 A.2d 688 (1978), and Commonwealth v. Cox, 466 Pa. 582, 353 A.2d 844 (1976). There the challenges of the appellants were to the sufficiency of the evidence as to who fired the fatal shots and, therefore, who could be convicted. Employing the doctrine of shared intent, we concluded that in order to convict, the prosecution had to prove that the Appellants were accomplices or co-conspirators. As to the issue of the identity of the killer, we held further that under “our law it is now axiomatic that the actor and his accomplice share equal responsibility for the act---- Thus it is not incumbent upon the prosecutor to identify their respective roles.” Bradley, 481 Pa. at 228, 392 A.2d at 690. Shared intent, moreover, can be proven by circumstantial evidence. Cox, 466 Pa. at 586, 353 A.2d at 846, and cases cited.
Where the actor similarly could not be singled out by the evidence, other cases have used synonymous language. Commonwealth v. Rife, 454 Pa. 506, 511, 312 A.2d 406, 409 (1973) (“act of one is act of all”) citing to the older language of Commonwealth v. Strantz, 328 Pa. 33, 40,195 A. 75, 79 (1937); Commonwealth v. Strong, 484 Pa. 303, 399 A.2d 88 (1979) (“group as a unit”); also see, Commonwealth v. Townes, 460 *204Pa. 709, 334 A.2d 599 (1975). In United States v. Bryan, 483 F.2d 88 (3rd Cir.1973), it was held that it is not a pre-requisite to the conviction of an aider or abettor that the principal be convicted or even identified.
For the majority to disregard this solution utterly is to overlook critical precedent. More importantly, nevertheless, is the fact that a tragedy is building out of this case against the people of this Commonwealth. A victim was intentionally bludgeoned to death; two actors were at the scene; unless we are prepared to believe in the Tooth Fairy, we know that one of them did it. Yet the majority will remand for a finding that any jury will soon discover is impossible to make on the majority’s terms. Without the legal theory expressed above, a jury will always be stuck with the broken record of how to attribute specific intent without identifying the particular roles of the perpetrators. So the killers will walk away from first degree murder and the death penalty. So the people will have been deprived of a fair trial.
The trial judge instructed the jury to determine the facts. On the evidence presented, the jury chose to believe that both actors had the requisite mental state for murder in the first degree. At that point, it was proper for the jury to decide that they were both guilty as charged even though specific roles could not be delineated under the facts.