Accomplice Liability Flashcards
Chapter 6
In California, what are parties to crimes classified as?
They are classified as:
1. principals; and
2. accessories
In California, how are perpetrators and accomplices (aider and abettors) classified as
- The actual perpetrator = principal
- the accomplice (aider and abettor) = principal
*In CL, an aider and abettor was an accessory
To find an accomplice guilty, what must the prosecutor prove?
- the actual perpetrator commit or attempted the crime;
- the person knew the actual perpetrator intended to commit the crim
- Before or during the commission of the crime, the person intended to aid and abet the perpetrator to commit the crime—the person had the mens rea for the crime;
- the person’s word or conduct, in fact, aided and abetted the actual perpetrator in the commission of the crime
Similarily, what are the required mental states and acts for aiding and abetting?
- the direct perpetrator’s actus reus
- the aider and abettor’s mens rea—knowledge of the direct perpetrator’s unlawful intent and an intent to assist in achieving those unlawful ends; and
- The aider and abettor’s actus resus—conduct by the aider and abettor that in fact assists the achievement of the crime
How is an accomplice charged?
An accomplice is charged with the crime committed by the actual perpetrator and derives liability from the perpetrator—liable for the perpetrator’s crime that they intended to aid and abet
What is an accessory?
“Every person who, after a felony is committed, harbors, conceals, or aids a principal in such felony, with the intent that said principal may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction of punishment, having knowledge that said principal has committed such felony or has been charged with such felony or convicted thereof
What are the elements for accessory liability?
- Someone other than the accused, that is, a principal, must have committed a specific completed felony
- The accused must have harbored, concealed, or aided the principal;
- with knowledge that the principal committed the felony; and
- with the intent that the principal avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment`
What does aider mean?
refers the conduct of an accomplice
What does abettor mean?
refers to the accomplice’s mental state
What are the four terms that California does not recognize for the actual perpetrator and the accomplices?
- Principal in the 1st degree—the actual perpetrator in the crime
- Principal in the 2nd degree—the accomplice who aids and abets and is actually or constructively present at the scene of the crime (getaway driver)
- Accessory before the fact—the accomplice who aids and abet but is not actually or constructively present at the scene of the crime (person who obtained the guns but not at the scene)
- Accessory after the fact—a person who did not take part in the planning or perpetration of the crime, but who, after the crime is committed, shelters, hide, or otherwise assists the parties to avoid arrest or prosecution
*Modernly, the accessory after the fact is not convicted of the actual perpetrator;s crime but is convicted of some variety of obstruction of justice
How can a defendant absolve himself of accomplice liability?
The people have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not withdraw. To withdraw, defendant must:
1. Notify everyone they know involved in the commission of the crime that they are not longer participating. The notification must be made early enough to prevent the commission of the crime; AND
2. They must do everything reasonably within their power to prevent the crime from being committed. They do not have to actually prevent the crime
What is an accomplice to unintentional crimes?
Generally, a person cannot be convicted of aiding and abetting an unintended result crime, however, other jurisdictions have held an aider and abettor liable for unintentional crimes, with the exception to murder
What is the natural and probable consequence doctrine?
An accomplice is liable for non-target crimes committed by the actual perpetrator that are a natural and probable consequence of the intended, target crime
What are the certain circumstances of the natural and probable consequences doctrine?
Whether judged objectively, the unplanned crime, was reasonably foreseeable. A possible consequence which might reasonably have been contemplated is enough.
*Evaluated under all the factual circumstances of the individual case and to resolved by the jury
How do you determine whether an accomplice is liable for an unintended crime?
- Did the perpetrator commit or attempt to commit a crime in addition to the target crime?
- Was the additional crime, although not planned at the outset, a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the target crime, or, in other words, was the additional crime a natural and probable consequence of the target crime
For accomplice purposes, when does a crime end?
When a crime ends, an accomplice to the crime is not responsible for future wrongdoing committed by the perpetrator of the complete crime. When a crime ends, depends on the crime.
1. An assault is complete once violence is commeced
2. A battery is complete when the willful or unlawful use of force or violence occurs
3. Murder ends with the death of the victim
When can an accomplice be liable for a death in a felony murder?
If one of the following occurs:
1. The person was the actual killer
2 The person was not the actual killer, but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree
3. The person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life
For accomplice to felony murder purposes, what does it take to be a major participant in the underlying felony?
Look at the circumstances:
1. Did the accomplice play a role in planning the crime that led to the death
2. Did the accomplice supply or use lethal weapons
3. Was the accomplice aware of particular dangers posed by the nature of the crime
4. Did the accomplice know that other participants in the crime were prone to violence
5. Was the accomplice present at the scene of the crime, able to facilitate or prevent the killing
6. Did the accomplice’s own action or inaction play a particular role in the death
7. What was the accomplice’s reaction after the killing
For felony murder, accomplice liability purposes, how do you determine whether the person acted with reckless indifference to human life?
By the subjective and objective components
To determine whether the person acted with reckless indifference to human life, what is the subjective component?
This asks whether the accomplice consciously disregarded risks to life that were known to the accomplice
1. The accomplice must be aware of and willingly involved in the violent manner in which the crime was committed
2. The accomplice must consciously disregard the significant risk of death that her or his actions created
To determine whether the person acted with reckless indifference to human life, what is the objective component?
Consider what a law-abiding person would observe in the accomplice’s situation
1. the risk of death must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the accomplice’s conduct and the circumstances known to the accomplice, the disregard of the risk of death is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the accomplice’s situation
2. Facts that bear on reckless indifference to human life include: (1) did the accomplice know deadly weapons were used in the crime, (2) How many weapons were used, (3) was the accomplice physically present at the scene of the crime, (4) did the accomplice know the violent propensities of the other felons, (5) did the accomplice take any steps to minimize the likelihood deadly force would be used?
What does the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice allow?
In mot courts, a criminal conviction cannot be predicated entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Testimony of an accomplice, standing alone, and without any other evidence of guilt is not sufficient to support a conviction.
*However, if there is evidence along with the corroborated testimony, it can implicate the defendant
