#17083 - Accomplice Liability - Criminal Law

Accountability for the Acts of Others/Accomplice Liability

• Punishment

  • Accomplice charged as if he/she committed crime itself; charged with same crime as person who actually committed the crime

• Types of accomplice

  • Accomplice less culpable than principal (lookout/bank robber)

  • Accomplice more culpable than principal (seller/distributor)

• Cannot impose individual criminal vicarious liability - violates due process

  • Guminga: cannot convict store owner with vicarious liability if he did not know or authorize the waitress giving alcohol to minors

    • Also cannot impose vicarious parental liability (encourage oversight and deter juvenile crime VS. encourages overly restrictive parenting and disproportionate enforcement on poor single parents)

    • But criminal entity (corporate) liability ok

  • Policy: people have free will and cannot control each other

• Requirements: mens rea + actus reus (NOT causation)

(ACCOMPLICE) COMMON LAW - MENS REA

MR does most of the work because actus reus is minimal

• Conduct: purpose

  • D must intend to aid and encourage the commission of the crime

  • Hicks (Native American trio)/Gladstone (directions to marijuana seller, did not associate himself with the centure) - knowledge of conduct is not enough, need intention that the conduct will be committed

  • Note: line between knowledge and intent is difficulty to draw

  • Evidence of purpose

    • Verbal evidence/words of encouragement

    • Recorded writing - diary or letter

    • Financial support to principal/financial stake

    • Personal interest/stake of accomplice in commission of crime

    • Associating oneself with the venture

    • Prior negative relationship with the victim (old enemy)

    • Contextual clues/deviation from normal behavior

    • Offer specialized help

  • Knowledge

  • Minority jx: knowledge that conduct will occur is sufficient if crime is serious

    • Fountain - D knows that handing the knife to fellow inmate will cause inmate to stab and skill prison guard

    • Policy: deterring commission of serious crimes

  • If no Fountain, infer intent from serious crime:

    • Argue that no one would assist someone else in the serious crime unless they intended for the conduct to happen

      • More serious the crime, more likely to infer intent

    • Show thus knowledge plus

      • Stake in the venture

      • No legitimate use of goods or services

      • Volume of goods or services have no legitimate use

  • Legislative equivalent of Fountain - Some states have passed statutes that only require knowledge for conduct (NY 115.05)

    • Criminal facilitation if believing that he/she probably rendering aid to class A felony, engages in conduct providing means and opportunity for commission

    • This is often used to charge romantic partners and family members of offender

  • What counts as serious crime?

    • Crimes involves materials that have no lawful purpose

    • Crimes involves materials of such quantity that they have no lawful purpose

• Attendant Circumstances: Ambiguous

  • MPC: Ambiguous, court can decide whether to use (1) same mens rea or (2) purpose/knowledge depending on the case

    • Ex. B gives A gun without knowing A is a felon and cannot possess guns (AC) & mens rea for this AC in underlying crime is SL

  • Consider whether the A and P have the same basis of knowledge by looking at the facts/circumstances of the case

  • Policy for same mens rea

    • SAME basis of knowledge (due to presence, conversation etc.)

      • Ex. If bank is AC in robbery offense, know that it is a bank from the conversation, presence not necessary

    • Encourage both principal and accomplices to investigate and do due diligence (of age, felon status, etc.)

    • Type of attendant circumstance that does not require special knowledge/presence to make a judgement

    • Deterrence effect - prevent harm by deterring careless behavior

    • Invoke legislative policies for the MR of the underlying crime

      • Age is AC, legislative purpose to protect young people from sexual exploitation

  • Policy for awareness

    • DIFFERENT basis of knowledge/different level of awareness (warrants higher MR) (due to non presence etc.)

      • Ex. If age if AC in rape offense, don't know that person is underage because not present/proximate and cannot see her (unlike the principal)

      • Ex. If felon status is AC in gun possession offense, don't know that the person has felon status (unlike the principal)

    • Don't want place excessive burden on accomplish of investigating, not put liability on people with no conscious wrongdoing

    • If AC requires prior knowledge/presence at crime scene

    • Worry about aiders who does not have all the information

    • Principal is on more notice/in better position to know the AC than the accomplice

• Result: Underlying

  • Same MR as the underlying crime

  • McVay/ Roebuck

  • Minority jx: you cannot be accomplice to a reckless/negligent crime

  • Problematic application in felony murder

    • Felony murder mens rea for result is strict liability

    • If participate in felony and death results, even if did not participate in killing, guilty of felony murder as accomplice

• Luparello/minority - natural and probable consequences doctrine

  • RULE: If accomplice puts criminal act into motion > subsequent crimes done by the principal are the natural and probable consequences of defendant's actions > accomplice is liable even if he did not intend the result

  • Luparello - D tells friends to locate ex lover at any costs > subsequent killing by principal > liable for 1st degree murder as accomplice

  • Criticism: holds people responsible for things they did not intend

  • Policy:

    • Harm based - punish because contributed to harm

    • Deterrence - deter people from putting criminal act in motion OR deter them from doing so carelessly

  • Effect: like FM but more expansive, can mix and match crimes

  • MPC rejects Luparello

  • Luparello analysis

  • Did principal commit target offense?

  • Is defendant accomplice to target offense?

  • Did principal commit additional crime that was reasonably foreseeable?

(ACCOMPLICE) COMMON LAW - ACTUS REUS

• An act that in some minimal way encourages or facilitates the crime

  • Mere presence is not enough

  • BUT not much is required (just opening the door is ok)

• See Wilcox (A attended and clapped at concert) - encouragement/Tally (sent telegram) - facilitation

• DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CL AND MPC: crime must occur; crime need not occur

  • 3 MPC differences (1) attempt to aid is enough for liability (2) liable for attempt even if crime not attempted/committed by principal (3) no luparello

• Common law: the underlying crime must occur (cannot be liable if accomplice tries and fails to help principal); must actually encourage and facilitate crime

  • Hayes (bacon thief)

    • Since principal did not commit the crime (no intent to steal), defendant is not liable as accomplice (if no principal who committed crime, no accomplice who committed the crime)

    • Rationale: allowing feigned principal to dictate liability of accomplice encourages principal to manipulate charges as in Vaden; potential law enforcement abuses

    • IF MPC, cannot charge P with attempt but can charge A with attempt to commit robbery as accomplice (under 5.01(3)) - bc there is intent for conduct to occur

  • COMPARE Vaden (shooting foxes)

    • Crime actually committed (P, undercover officer shot and killed 4 foxes) > can charge Vaden with accomplice liability under both CL and MPC

    • BUT Vaden does not get the excuse of P (the public authority defense)

    • Dissent: this approach allows feigned principal to control ultimate liability of D using the harm the principal caused

      • D's culpability in the hands of another

    • Some jx allow defense of sentence entrapment

      • D can ask for mitigation because gov official induced criminal activity that would not otherwise have been induced

If the principal is feigned, the accomplice might be able to claim

• entrapment as a defense, generally govt inducement of a Δ who is not predisposed to commit the offense (when princiapl is a govt agent who improperly induces Δ’s criminal activity)

• Feigned principals can also induce a greater crime to essentially guarantee a higher charge/sentence (sentencing entrapment)

(ACCOMPLICE) MPC – MENS REA

• Conduct: purpose

  • "purpose of promoting or facilitating”

• Result: underlying

  • "Result element requires the same culpability as the substantive offense"

• Attendant circumstances – ambiguous (argue as in CL)

(ACCOMPLICE) MPC – ACTUS REUS

• An act that in some minimal way encourages or facilitates the crime

• 2.06(3)(a)

  • (i) solicits person to commit

  • (ii) aids or agrees or attempts to aid in planning or committing

  • (iii) having a legal duty to prevent, fails to make proper effort to do so

• BUT the underlying crime does not need to occur; don't need to actually encourage or facilitate, only need to attempt to do

  • 5.01(3): charge attempt to commit crime x as accomplice

    • even if you cannot charge principal with attempt

  • If apply MPC to Tally and the brothers never found and killed the victim, charge Tally with attempt to be aid homicide

  • Policy: person is morally culpable having aided, whether or not principal ultimately commits the crime

    • Allowing charging of people who attempt to aid in crime in uncover operations

MPC - Terminating accomplice liability

• MPC 2.06(6): (1) terminate the complicity prior to commission of offense (2) wholly deprive complicity of effectiveness OR give timely warning to law enforcement OR make proper effort to prevent crime

Summary