Thought I saw this in my notes, but cannot find it....

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
corporatelaw87
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:26 pm

Thought I saw this in my notes, but cannot find it....

Postby corporatelaw87 » Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:18 pm

For aiding and abetting in a crime, does the aider have to know the person committing the crime? I thought I read somewhere that the aider doesn't even have to know the criminal, but as long as he aides in someway he is still considered an accessory. Also does he have to know he is helping in a crime? Like if a cab drops a guy off at the bank, and that guy robs the bank, is the cab driver an accessory even though he had no idea of his intentions?

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Thought I saw this in my notes, but cannot find it....

Postby vamedic03 » Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:36 pm

corporatelaw87 wrote:For aiding and abetting in a crime, does the aider have to know the person committing the crime? I thought I read somewhere that the aider doesn't even have to know the criminal, but as long as he aides in someway he is still considered an accessory. Also does he have to know he is helping in a crime? Like if a cab drops a guy off at the bank, and that guy robs the bank, is the cab driver an accessory even though he had no idea of his intentions?


Too lazy to directly answer, however, I've copied that relevant section of my outline from last year:


3. Conduct Required for Complicity
a. Common Law
i. Rex v. Russell (principal in the 2d degree)– R stood by and watched his wife drown his children and drown herself. Convicted of manslaughter as an accomplice
1. Conduct insufficient for accomplice liability:
a. Presence and non-action alone is not a sufficient basis for liability
i. Being “barely present” and “merely passive” is not enough.
ii. “Although a man is present … if he takes no part in it” he won’t be liable.
iii. “Some active steps must be taken … Non-interference to prevent a crime is not itself a crime.
2. Conduct Sufficient for accomplice liability:
a. May be liable if “voluntarily present … and offered no opposition though he might reasonably be expected to prevent and had the power to do, or at least to express his dissent”
b. May be liable “if a person present … shows his assent”
c. “Assent may … be shown by the absence of dissent”
d. Assent shows one is "linked in purpose" with the principal and is doing something to "render more likely" the crime’s commission.
ii. State v. Talley – V had seduced T’s sister-in-law. V, fearing for his life, fled town. The Skeltons set out after him and ambushed and killed V. T had remained behind in town and tried to prevent anyone from sending warning telegrams. When a warning telegram was sent, T sent word not to deliver the telegram.
1. T liable for making the killing of V “of much more easy and certain accomplishment.”
2. Does not matter if the killers know of the aid – “it is quite sufficient if it facilitated a result that would have transpired without it”
3. Must have some sort of causal effect to cause liability
4. If the aid was completely ineffectual and the principals were unaware of the aid probable would not have been liable
b. MPC 2.06
i. A person is guilty of an offense if it is committed by his own conduct or by the conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable, or both.
ii. A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when:
1. acting with the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, he causes an innocent or irresponsible person to engage in such conduct; or
2. he is made accountable for the conduct of such other person by the Code or by the law defining the offense; or
3. he is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the offense.
iii. A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if:
1. With the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he:
a. solicits such other person to commit it, or
b. aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it, or
c. having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make proper effort so to do; ….
iv. Note – section 2 – provides a definition for when one is legally accountable for the actions of another
1. Example of innocent agent – place drugs in someone’s car without them knowing it
4. The Culpability Required for Complicity
a. Two dimensions -> culpability for one’s own conduct and for principal’s conduct
b. Purpose – accomplice has the purpose that the crime be committed
i. United States v. Peoni – P sold counterfeit money to R who then sold them to Dorsey. Dorsey then used the bills.
1. Clearly sufficient conduct
2. Requires that the accomplice has the purpose that the crime be committed
3. “Demands that he in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed”
4. In other words, requires more than just knowledge that the crime will occur, must act with the purpose that the crime occur
5. MAJORITY RULE
c. Knowledge – accomplice knows that his assistance will aid in a crime
i. Backun v United States – B sold stolen silverware to Z who then transported it to the South where there was a market in silverware. B knew that Z was planning to transport the silverware, after purchase, to the South. Both charged with “transporting stolen merchandise . . . in interstate commerce.”
1. Only requires that D knows that the goods will be used in a crime to be liable for the crime
2. “It is difficult to see why, in selling goods which he knows will makes its perpetration possible with knowledge that they will be used for that purpose, he is not aiding and abetting in its commission within any fair meaning of those terms”
3. Imposes a duty on the seller to not make an otherwise lawful sale if they know that the buyer has an illegal intention for the products
4. Much broader rule than Peoni
d. MPC – Adopts the Peoni approach – 2.06:
i. A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if:
1. With the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense he:
a. Solicits such other person to commit; or
b. Aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other
ii. An “accomplice to the conduct” (who is aiding the principal) “is an accomplice” (i.e., is liable for the principal’s crime) “if he acts with the kind of culpability [for the result element] . . . that is sufficient” for the principal to be guilty
1. If statute requires purpose as to results, then accomplice must have purpose as to the results
2. If statute only requires recklessness as to results, then the accomplice can be merely reckless
e. Joint Expedition – Durham
i. People v. Durham – D + Principal were involved in a series of crime. While driving in a stolen car, they were stopped by a cop. Principal shot and killed cop. D held liable as an accomplice.
1. Distinguished from other situations – D did not facilitate, aid, or intent for principal to kill cop
2. Engaged in a “joint expedition” of robberies and “forcible resistance to arrest”
3. “Was a party to a compact of criminal conduct which included within its scope the forcible resistance of arrest and that he was also ‘present for the purpose of assisting in its commission”
4. If involved in joint expedition – then “liable for the reasonable and natural probable consequences of any act that he knowingly aid”
5. D knew that the shooting of the officer was “a reasonable and probable consequence of the continuing coarse of action undertaken”
6. How to avoid such liability?
a. Actively try to stop the shooting, or
b. Informing the officer that principal had a gun
5. Guilt of The Principal
a. Derivative liability – traditionally, the accomplice’s liability is derivative of principal’s liability . . .
i. Dusenberry v. Commonwealth – D, coerced X & Y to have sex with each other. D prosecuted for rape.
1. “Although conviction of a principal in the first degree is not a condition precedent to conviction of an accessory, before the accessory to a crime can be convicted as such, it must be shown that the crime has been committed by the principal.”
2. Minority view – not even good law in VA
b. Modern view
i. Substantive v. procedural:
1. If principal is substantively innocent, then accomplice more difficult for the accomplice to be convicted; however,
2. If principal is procedurally innocent, then accomplice can be convicted even if the principal is not
ii. Regina v. Cogan and Leak – C + L, while inebriated, go to L’s home. L has C have sex with L’s wife against her will. C was found not guilty of rape due to mistake about consent. L found guilty of rape.
1. Court rejects traditional view – states even if L is innocent, a rape still occurred
2. “the act of sexual intercourse without the wife’s consent was the actus reus: it had been procured by L who had the appropriate mens rea, namely, his intention that C should have sexual intercourse with her without her consent”
c. Note – Accomplice can be guilty of a greater offense than the principal [assuming that principal can be liable]
6. Limits of Accomplice Liability
a. Victim cannot be accomplice
i. Regina v. Tyrrell – D charged with aiding and abetting the commission upon herself of the offense of carnal knowledge.
1. Purpose of the statute is to protect the victim, therefore she cannot be an accomplice
ii. MPC 2.06 Unless otherwise provided by the Code or by the law defining the offense, a person is not an accomplice in an offense committed by another person if:
1. He is a victim of that offense; or
2. The offense is so defined that his conduct is inevitably incident to its commission
b. Withdrawal
i. MPC – a person is not liable as an accomplice to the offense of another if he terminates his complicity prior to the commission of the offense, and:
1. Wholly deprives it of effectiveness in the commission of the offense; or
2. Gives timely warning to the law-enforcement authorities or otherwise makes proper effort to prevent commission of the offense

Baylan
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: Thought I saw this in my notes, but cannot find it....

Postby Baylan » Sat Nov 13, 2010 10:21 pm

corporatelaw87 wrote:For aiding and abetting in a crime, does the aider have to know the person committing the crime? I thought I read somewhere that the aider doesn't even have to know the criminal, but as long as he aides in someway he is still considered an accessory. Also does he have to know he is helping in a crime? Like if a cab drops a guy off at the bank, and that guy robs the bank, is the cab driver an accessory even though he had no idea of his intentions?


Doesn't have to specifically know the criminal. Does need to know that the crime would be committed. If he doesn't know the crime is/has/will be committed, he is only an innocent instrumentality.

christmas mouse
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:03 pm

Re: Thought I saw this in my notes, but cannot find it....

Postby christmas mouse » Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:59 pm

3. Conduct Required for Complicity
a. Common Law
i. Rex v. Russell (principal in the 2d degree)– R stood by and watched his wife drown his children and drown herself. Convicted of manslaughter as an accomplice
1. Conduct insufficient for accomplice liability:
a. Presence and non-action alone is not a sufficient basis for liability
i. Being “barely present” and “merely passive” is not enough.
ii. “Although a man is present … if he takes no part in it” he won’t be liable.
iii. “Some active steps must be taken … Non-interference to prevent a crime is not itself a crime.


This is correct for accomplice liability, but take note that R (the husband in above case) could still be guilty of a separate offense based on his omission to protect his children because of (1) the legal duty between parents and children (special relationship between actor and victim) and (2) he was physically capable to do something about it. Without checking the statutes I want to say the crime he could be liable for would be either reckless endangerment or negligent something of a child because his omission fulfills the act requirement and would be sufficient to constitute as conduct that puts someone in harm of serious bodily harm.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests