Chapter 6 Powerpoint pt. 1

Question 1

What are the four categories of parties to a crime, under the common law?

Answer 1

(1) principles in the first degree
(2) principles in the second degree
(3) accessory before the fact
(4) accessory after the fact

Question 2

True or False: Most jurisdictions still use the common law approach to parties of crime

Answer 2

False; Most jurisdictions no longer use the common law approach to parties of crime

Question 3

What are the two parties to a crime (besides principles)?

Answer 3

(1) Accomplices

(2) Accessories

Question 4

What is the difference between accomplices and accessories?

Answer 4

Accomplices-Individuals participating before and during a crime.
Accessories-Individuals involved following a crime.

Question 5

___________- Individuals participating before and during a crime.

Answer 5

Accomplices

Question 6

__________- Individuals involved following a crime.

Answer 6

Accessories

Question 7

Is this accomplices or accessories: are usually charged with the offense at hand

Answer 7

accomplices

Question 8

Is this accomplices or accessories: are usually charged with a separate, lesser offense.

Answer 8

accessories

Question 9

Statutes and judicial decisions describe the actus reus of accomplice liability using a range of seemingly confusing terms such as ____, _____, _________, and ________.

Answer 9

aid
abet
encourage
command

Question 10

Statutes and judicial decisions describe the ______ ____ of accomplice liability using a range of seemingly confusing terms such as aid, abet, encourage, and command.

Answer 10

actus reus

Question 11

Typically, the act of an _________ can be very minor.

Answer 11

accomplice

Question 12

Typically, the act of an accomplice can be very ______.

Answer 12

minor

Question 13

What is the mere presence rule?

Answer 13

Simply being present and watching a criminal act does not satisfy the needed act for liability.

Question 14

There is a lack of agreement over the required ____ ____ for accomplice liability.

Answer 14

mens rea

Question 15

To prove “dual intent” a defendant must possess intent to?

Answer 15

(1) to assist the primary criminal party

(2) that the primary party commit the offense charged

Question 16

a person encouraging or facilitating the commission of a crime will be held liable as an accomplice for the crime aided, as well as for crimes that are the natural and probable outcome of the criminal conduct

Answer 16

The natural and probable consequences doctrine

Question 17

What are the building blocks of criminal conduct?

Answer 17

(1) Constitutional limitations
(2) Actus reus
(3) Mens rea
(4) Concurrence between act and intent

Question 18

True or False: Only individuals who assist during the commission of a crime are typically held liable

Answer 18

False; Individuals who assist before, during, or after the commission of a crime are typically held liable

Question 19

Which category of parties to a crime, under the common law is this: main perpetrator of the crime?

Answer 19

Principals in the First Degree

Question 20

Which category of parties to a crime, under the common law is this: individuals assisting the main perpetrator who are either physically or constructively present

Answer 20

Principals in the Second Degree

Question 21

Which category of parties to a crime, under the common law is this: individuals who help prepare for the crime who are neither physically nor constructively present?

Answer 21

Accessory Before the Fact

Question 22

Which category of parties to a crime, under the common law is this: individuals who assist the perpetrators knowing a crime has been committed?

Answer 22

Accessory After the Fact

Question 23

Individuals may be held liable based on their relationship with the perpetrator of a crime, this is known as?

Answer 23

vicarious liability

Question 24

A conspiracy to commit a crime and the crime itself are separate and distinct crimes, is known as?

Answer 24

Pinkerton Rule

Question 25

Accessories are considered a separate __________.

Answer 25

misdemeanor

Question 26

__________ are considered a separate misdemeanor.

Answer 26

Accessories

Question 27

An exception to the mere presence rule arises where the defendants possess a duty to _________.

Answer 27

intervene

Question 28

An exception to the _____ ________ _____ arises where the defendants possess a duty to intervene.

Answer 28

mere presence rule

Question 29

What happened in the State v. Ulvinen case?

Answer 29

ACCOMPLICE ACTUS REUS. Participation in son's murder of his wife. Accused of first-degree murder but reversed, because failing to notify someone of impending death does not make such an omission a criminal offense.

Question 30

Some judges have ruled that the mens rea requirement for accomplice liability in the case of serious crimes is satisfied by?

Answer 30

the knowledge of a defendant’s criminal plans.

Question 31

What happened in the Backun v. United States case?

Answer 31

- Defendant appealed decision of the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina convicting and sentencing him for transporting stolen merchandise of a value in excess of $ 5,000 in interstate commerce in violation of the National Stolen Property Act. - Defendants conviction was reversed because although sufficient evidence proved that defendant knew that the stolen property he sold was going to be transported in interstate commerce, the evidence did not sufficiently prove that the value of the property was in excess of $ 5,000, thus the conviction was not proper.

Question 32

"A person encouraging or facilitating the commission of a crime will be held liable as an accomplice for the crime he or she aided and abetted as well as for crimes that are a natural and probable outcome of the criminal conduct", is known as?

Answer 32

Natural and probable consequences doctrine

Question 33

What happened in the State v. Linscott case?

Answer 33

- William Linscott (Defendant), appeals from a judgment following a jury-waived trial convicting him of one count of murder and one count of robbery. - Linscott contends that his conviction of intentional or knowing murder as an accomplice under the applicable accomplice liability statute violated his constitutional right to due process of law in that he lacked the requisite intent to commit murder. - The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine finds no constitutional defect in the statutory provision assigning liability to the Defendant as an accomplice in this matter. - Furthermore, there is no fundamental unfairness in the application of the relevant statutory provision.