Class 6: Accomplices/Conspiracy Liability.

Question 1

What is the core of accomplice liability?

Answer 1

Assistance

Question 2

What are the three ways you typically get assistance for accomplices? Three forms

Answer 2

Physical conduct (aiding)

Encouragement (abbedding)

Ommission

Question 3

What does “aiding and abetting” mean?

What is it used for?

Answer 3

It helping someone.

For accomplices.

Question 4

Hypo:

A robs a bank and you stand next them while committing saying yeah fuck the bank

Are you an accomplice? Why?

Answer 4

You are an accomplice. You assisted with encouragement.

Question 5

True or false: An accomplice is guilty for any offence committed by the principle.

Answer 5

True

Question 6

xx

Answer 6

xx

Question 7

What is the actus reus of accomplice liability?

What are some adjectives other then the main one?

Are trivial levels sufficient?

Answer 7

Assistance is the main.

Aid, counselling, commanding, entreating, supporting, encouraging.

Trivial levels of assistance are sufficient.

Question 8

Is merely being present enough to be an accomplice?

What about if you are a bystander?

Answer 8

No to both. Need AFFIRMATIVE action.

Question 9

State v. VT:

Facts: 3 boys stayed with a relative. The other boys were active in trying to sell it while VT did not say anything he just went along with it.

Issue: Was VT an accomplice?

1) If they find there was encouragement, then what?

2) What if there were just passive behaviour?

3) Is being present enough?

Answer 9

Holding/Analysis

Crown argues VT encouraged the offence. If so, they are an accomplice.

COA said all they could find on VT was mere passive behaviour, not any type of affirmative encouragement. This would not be enough.

Being present isn’t enough. There must be actions/words of encouragement.

Question 10

State v Davis:

Facts: Case where the father held the girl’s hand who was getting raped by his son and saying it will be okay.

Issue:

1) Is he a bystander? Why?
2) Is he an accomplice? Why?
3) If he doesn’t say anything, can he still be an accomplice?

Answer 10

Holding/Analysis

No not a bystander.

The court said it was accomplice liability because his presence encouraged the perp.

Although the encouragement here was omission, the court said the accused looked up to his father and this was encouragement.

Question 11

Hypothetical:

What if a defendant tries to encourage the problem but it is ineffectual? What if it does not work?

Is he an accomplice?

Answer 11

You must actually provide assistance in some way. Even if trivial.

If it made 0 difference, he is not an accomplice.

Question 12

Willcox v Jefferey: Accomplice Liability (Actus Reus)

Facts: Defendant Wilcox was held responsible as an accomplice for attending a jazz concert in London. The principal crime was the musician’s violation of immigration and employment regulations. Wilcox bought a ticket, smiled, and applauded the principal.

Issue: Is he an accomplice?

Note to future Phil: This case is controversial. The prof said take this decision with a grain of salt as it’s not really applicable but we should still know it.

Answer 12

Holding/Analysis

The court upheld Wilcox’s liability as an accomplice, as he aided and abetted the alien order as he couldn’t work in London.

Ratio: By attending and paying for the ticket, applauding this was encouragement and thus he was an accomplice.

Question 13

R v. Judge Tally

Facts: Guy blocked a telegram. There is an argument that the blocking may not have helped at all, potentially just a trial level.

Issue:
1) Would a trivial level of assistance count for an accomplice?

Answer 13

Holding/Analysis

Yes. He made the death quicker and easier. This constituted an actus reus for the accomplice.

Even if there is a trivial level of assistance, it does not need to cause the commission of the crime.

Question 14

What is the general standard for intent for Accomplice liability?

Is it always the case?

Answer 14

Specific intent is needed.

Not all jurisdictions use this.

Question 15

True or false: Accomplice liability generally requires an intent to aid.

Answer 15

True

Question 16

In a state that uses the knowledge standard for accomplice liability, what are the two theories they use?

What does the MPC use?

Answer 16

In a knowledge jurisdiction, the two theories are
1) the aider knows his aid will help facilitate the offence or
2) we infer a specific intent from his knowledge.

Most places infer purpose from that knowledge

MPC requires specific intent only.

Question 17

Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine for Accomplice. What is the rule?

Does the MPC acknowledge it?

What does the MPC require regarding accomplices?

Answer 17

Bottom line rule: the accomplice is guilty not only of the target crime, but of any other crime committed by the principal that is the natural and probable consequence of the target crime that the accomplice aided.

The MPC does NOT acknowledge it.

They require specific intent.

Question 18

For the natural and probable consequence doctrine for accomplices, do you need to prove mens rea?

Answer 18

No just the aid.

Similar to the Pinkerton Principle for Conspiracy.

Question 19

HYPO:

I provide aid to a robbery. Me and a couple other guys want to rob a drug dealer and I provide assistance as I am the getaway driver. We get to the drug dealers house and one of my co-felons goes in, robs the guy, and kills the guy. I had no intent to the killing of the drug dealer

Use the natural and probable consequence doctrine for accomplices.

What am I guilty of?

Answer 19

Under this doctrine, I am still guilty of the killing. I am liable for the robbery AND the murder

Question 20

People v Prettyman

Facts: Prettyman and Brey were homeless people. They got into an argument. Brey gave her wallet to a third party. Later, Brey told Prettyman she wanted the wallet back. Prettyman beat the third party to death.

Issue:

1) Apply the natural and probable consequence doctrine. Is the accomplice liable for the individuals death?

Answer 20

Holding/Analysis:

The court held the death was a natural and probable consequence and thus the accomplice was liable for death.

Remember we are imposing liability on the accomplice on something they likely did not intend to happen.

All the accomplice usually intends is just to aid the first crime.

Question 21

What is the Innocent Instrumentality Rule for Accomplice Liability?

Answer 21

That your guilty of the offence if you affect a criminal act by using an innocent instrumentality.

That is if you use an innocent person to essentially commit the criminal act for you where the innocent person did not know they are.

Question 22

Bailey v Commonwealth

Facts: Bailey had sent the police to his rival M after a series of fights between them. Police killed him.

Issue:

What is the innocent instrumentality rule apply? Does it apply?

If so what does that make you?

Answer 22

Holding/Analysis

It does apply.

SCC said if you affect a criminal act through an innocent agent, you are a principal to the crime.

The police were the innocent instrument. Bailey used the police to kill M rather than going personally to kill M. Bailey KNEW when the police went to M/s home, the police would likely kill him.

Question 23

What is the general rule if the principal got acquitted and now we have to try the accomplice?

Is this always the case?

Answer 23

General rule is to allow accomplices to be prosecuted even if the principle is acquitted.

This is not always the case.

Question 24

What is a “justification” for a defence to accomplice liability?

What does this mean if the principal got acquitted?

Answer 24

A justification is a defense that negates the fact that a crime even committed as the act was justified. Thus, the act was not morally blameworthy but morally desirable. Justified under the circumstances.

IF you have a case where the principle was acquitted based on a justification, this can a acquittal on the accomplice.

Question 25

Standefer v United States:

Facts: S was the tax manager at company, and he authorized vacations for N who was an IRS agent who was working on his company’s tax returns. However, N was acquitted on some of his charges. S argues if N was acquitted, I should be acquitted.

Issue:

1) If the principal was acquitted, should the accomplice automatically also get acquitted?

Answer 25

Holding/Analysis

Congress did not intend for aider and abettor liability to depend on the principal crime. It is not required for this. Although accomplice liability is derived in theory, in practice they can be treated differently.

Question 26

United States v Lopez:

Facts: Ronald McIntosh wanted to break his girlfriend Samantha Lopez out of prison; he procured a helicopter and landed it right on the grounds of the federal prison where she was incarcerated. Lopez argues necessity for fear of death at prison.

Issue: Can the defence of necessity work for accomplice liability?

Answer 26

Holding/Analysis

At trial, Lopez asserted that her escape was justified on grounds of necessity because her life had been threatened while she was in prison. McIntosh requested that the judge instruct the jury that if they acquitted Lopez then they had to acquit McIntosh too.

Court agreed, that necessity WAS a justification.

Ratio: A justification (necessity) can get rid of accomplice liability if acquitted.

Question 27

State v Formella

Facts: Several students decided to steal a math exam from the third floor of the school building. The defendant stayed behind and agreed to serve as a lookout. He was supposed to yell something to the thieves from a distance if anyone approached. However, he changed his mind. Without saying anything to the thieves, he left.

Issue:
1) Can you withdraw from an attempt?

2) What is generally required for a successful withdrawal?

3) Was the fact that he walked away enough for withdrawal?

Answer 27

Holding/Analysis

Some jurisdictions ALLOW withdrawal aka to unwind your participation, like give a warning to police, or take efforts to stop the crime, that can be a withdrawal similar to abandonment.

1) Voluntary abandonment
2) Complete withdrawal
3) Steps to undo-damage.

3) Court held that him simply walking away did not counter his complicity. The thieves were assured by his action as they thought they had a look out, and because he did not make a try to stop the crime, it was encouraging and thus an accomplice.

Question 28

For conspiracy, can it be an offence of itself, a way of making someone guilty of other crimes? Is it one of the two or both?

Answer 28

Conspiracy can be both an offence and a way of making someone guilty of other substantive crimes

It can be a crime itself.

Question 29

What is the three part test to establish conspiracy as a mode of liability for others conduct?

Answer 29

1. To do this, you must first establish that the defendant was part of a conspiracy
2. Then you must establish the nature and extent of the conspiracy to which the defendant was a party
3. Then you must determine whether the defendant can be guilty of other crimes committed.

Question 30

What is the Pinkerton doctrine for conspiracy?

What is it similar too?

Answer 30

A conspirator is guilty not only of conspiracy, but of any substantive crime committed by any other member of the conspiracy that is within the scope of the conspiracy or is reasonably foreseeable even if not part of agreement

Felony murder

Question 31

For the Pinkerton doctrine for conspiracy, do you need to prove mens rea?

Answer 31

NO just the actus reus of the conspiracy.

Question 32

Hypo: A and B agree to rob a bank, A will do the robbery B will drive the getaway car. To help the robbery, B steals a car and uses it for the bank job. A does not know the car is stolen. A robs the bank and they flee in the stolen car. (Use the Pinkerton Doctrine)

What is A guilty of?

What is B guilty of?

Answer 32

What is A guilty of?
Conspiracy, bank robbery, and car theft.

Car theft using the Pinkerton Doctrine. The car theft was reasonably foreseeable.

What is B guilty of?
Conspiracy, bank robbery, car theft.

Question 33

United States v Alvarez

Facts: Cocaine deal turned into a shoot-out when two undercover agents shot at the accused and the undercover died.

Issue:

1) What is the Pinkerton Doctrine?

2) Apply it here (assume the killing was reasonably foreseeable)

Answer 33

Holding/Analysis

1) Conspiracy
2) Crimes happening in the conspiracy
3) Reasonably foreseeable

Yes. the killing was reasonably foreseeable, and although it was not among the scope of the agreement, it was all foreseeable.

Question 34

Can you be an accomplice but not a conspirator?

Answer 34

Yes.

Question 35

Example: A wants to rob a bank. I don’t know them, we don’t agree, I am in the bank, and I am doing my business. A comes into bank and starts robbing the bank. I can tell there is a bank robbery. We have no meeting of the minds, but I decide “I hate this bank, I’m going to help. I knock out the cameras for him, or I open the door for him”

Am I an accomplice, conspirator or both?

Answer 35

I have now assisted the bank robbery; I am now an accomplice. But there is no conspiracy as we never had an agreement.

Question 36

Commonwealth v Cook:

Facts: Cook brothers were talking to a 17-year-old. She fell to the ground, and one of the brothers started to rape her and the other brother held her belt and told the guy “Good job”

Issue:
1) Is he an accomplice? Why or why not?
2) Is he a conspirator? Why or why not?

Answer 36

Holding/Analysis

A conspirator requires an agreement or plan of the crime. Here, there was no pre-arranged plan or agreement between the brothers.

An accomplice is someone who assisted (aider or abettor) Here he helped by holding her down and encouraging him.

Thus he is an accomplice.

Question 37

What are the three things you need for Pinkerton liability?

Answer 37

Pinkerton liability:
1) there must be conspiracy,
2) a subsequent crime beyond the conspiracy, and
3) the crime must be in the scope of the conspiracy or reasonably foreseeable

Question 38

What is the idea when the prof talked about the hub and wheel?

Answer 38

To connect people in a conspiracy you need something that connects it all. You need proof that there is an agreement between all.

You need ONE BIG conspiracy. A community of interest.

Question 39

x

Answer 39

xx

Question 40

People v Bruno:

Facts: Bruno and 86 others were charged with importing and selling drugs. Narcotic conspiracy. No communication between importer and sellers. The importers knew the middlemen dealt with the small guys, and vice versa.

Issue:

1) Is there 1 conspiracy or many conspiracies?

Answer 40

Holding/Analysis

Everyone was connected to the middle men. Court said this was a single chain conspiracy, with each link having a stake in the larger venture.

1 conspiracy.

Question 41

People v Kyriakos

Facts: B was a broker for bad loans. 8 different groups worked for B unconnected to each other but all used B for their broker.

Issue: Was it one big conspiracy?

Answer 41

Holding/Analysis:

Court said there was no connection with the sole exception they are working with B. all it means it is all independent loans

Ratio: It was not all connected.

Question 42

Can you argue withdrawal for a conspiracy crime under common law?

How do you claim withdrawal?

Answer 42

At common law no.

Where withdrawal is permitted, you cannot just walk away. Differ from abandonment/renunciation but bottom line is the same, conspirator must take affirmative act to defeat or disavow conspiracy

Question 43

United States v Shuai: Withdrawal of a Conspiracy

Facts: S and R collected a street tax from block busters on behalf of the Mafia. R collected 11k a month. On the advice of the FBI the owner stopped paying. R advised Block buster not too. R walked away and S took over the extortion and collected the 11k. R is never seen again.

Issue:

1) Can R claim withdrawal? Why or why not?

Answer 43

Holding/Analysis

No that is not withdrawal. To withdraw you must take steps to defeat or disavow the conspiracy. Merely ceasing participation is not enough.