Group Crime - Accomplice liability and Conspiracy

Question 1

NY Penal Law 20.00

Criminal liability for the conduct of another

Answer 1

1. When one person engages in conduct which constitutes an offence, another person is criminally liable for such conduct when, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission thereof he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids such person to engage in such conduct.

Question 2

Accomplice liability

Answer 2

Not a crime on its own! It must be connected to the crime committed by the principle:

i.e.

• Accomplice to murder,
• Accomplice to rape etc.

Question 3

MPC 2.06

Liability for conduct of another

Answer 3

1. A person is guilty of an offence if it is committed by his own conduct or by the conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable, or both
2. A person IS AN ACCOMPLICE of another in the commission of a felony if:
   
   1. With the PURPOSE of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offence he:
      
      1. Solicits such other persons to commit it, or
      2. Aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in the planning or committing of it, or
      3. Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of it, he fails to make proper effort to do so.

Question 4

Wilcox v. Jeffrey

Answer 4

A person’s willful and intentional presence at the commission of a crime may be used as evidence of aiding and abetting the crime when his presence is combined with evidence that the person encouraged the illegal act.

• Actus reus = Presence + Encouraging
• Bonanno’s second cold call

Question 5

State ex rel AG v. Tally

Answer 5

If the aid rendered in a homicide can be shown to have put the deceased at a disadvantage, if it deprived him even of a single change of life, the abettor is guilty as an accomplice to murder.

• Mens rea = Purpose,
• Causation = Do not need but for. Deprivation of a single chance at life is enough.

Question 6

MPC 2,06(6)

Renunciation (Accomplice Liability)

Answer 6

A person is not an accomplice in an offence committed by another if:

• He terminates his complicity prior to the commission of the offence, AND
  
  • Wholly deprives it of its effectiveness, or
  • Gives timely warning to law enforcement or otherwise makes proper effort to prevent the commission of the offence.

Question 7

State v. Gladstone

Answer 7

To aid and abet another to commit a crime, it is necessary that a defendant “in some sort associate himself in the venture, that he participate in it as something that he wishes to bring about, that he seeks by his actions to make it succeed.”

• Mens Rea:
  
  • Conduct = Purpose
    
    • Must also be a NEXUS between the accused and the party whom he is charged with aiding and abetting.
    • here, the mens rea was knowingly and it wasn’t his conscious object

Question 8

Criminal facilitation

Answer 8

Aiding without purpose. Created as a separate crime with a lesser penalty that the crime aided.

• A number of states have this crime in order to prosecute aiders that lack the purposeful mens rea.

Question 9

State v. McVay

Answer 9

The mens rea with regards the RESULT element for accomplice liability IS THE SAME AS THE UNDERLYING OFFENCE.

• Here, purposeful as to conduct.
  
  • He purposely advised the principles not to fix the boiler.
• RECKLESS/NEGLIGENT as to the RESULT
  
  • He did not intend for his conduct to lead to the accident; however, it did. He was reckless/negligent as to the result. Only needs negligence because mens rea of underlying crime (manslaughter) is negligence.

Question 10

MPC 2.06

Result mens rea in accomplice liability

Answer 10

When causing a particular RESULT is an element of an offence, an accomplice in the conduct causing such a result is an accomplice in the commission of the offence, if he ACTS WITH THE KIND OF CULPABILITY with respect to the RESULT that is SUFFICIENT FOR THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE.

Question 11

Mens Rea Table

Attempt & Accomplice

Answer 11

Attempt

Conduct = Purpose,

AC = Same as underlying offense,

Result = Purpose/belief.

Accomplice

Conduct = Purpose

AC = Policy punt

Result = Same mens rea required for the principal

Question 12

People v. Russell

Answer 12

Intentionally participating in inherently dangerous and unlawful activity results in shared culpability of the participants, therefore all the defendants can be charged as accomplices to murder, regardless of who actually fired the deadly bullet since they knowingly agreed to participate in a shootout.

• DONT NEED A PRINCIPAL so long as you know one of the persons committed the crime and the other purposefully participated. Can charge everyone as an accomplice.
  
  • Under MPC punishment would be the same as the completed crime for everyone, unless capital punishment or life.

Question 13

Conspiracy

Definition and Actus Reus

Answer 13

The crime of agreeing with another to commit a criminal offence. Conspiracy IS ITS OWN SEPARATE CRIME, which carries its own sentence. A person can be charged with conspiracy AND the object crime.

• i.e. Murder and Conspiracy to commit murder.

Actus Reus = Traditionally, the making of the agreement itself. Purpose to agree.

Modern times = Need an agreement PLUS an overt act.

• Except, don’t need the overt act FOR THE MOST SERIOUS OFFENCES under the MPC.

Question 14

State v. Millan

Answer 14

The existence of a formal agreement between the conspirators need not be proved because it is only in rare instances that proof of an express agreement may exist. The requisite agreement MAY BE INFERRED from proof of separate acts of the individuals and from CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

Question 15

Punishment for conspiracy

Answer 15

• Punishable EVEN IF THE AGREED OFFENCE DOES NOT OCCUR.
• Punishable SEPARATELY and IN ADDITION to the completed offence,
• FEDERAL LAW, when the object crime is a misdemeanor, punishment for conspiracy shall not exceed the punishment authorized for the misdemeanor,
• MAJORITY, FIX THE PUNISHMENT for conspiracy at some term tied to but less than the sentence for the object crime,
• 1/3 of states follow the MPC 5.01, punishment for conspiracy IS THE SAME AS THAT AUTHORIZED FOR THE OBJECT CRIM, except in the case of the most serious felonies.

Question 16

Perry v. State

Answer 16

Agreement may be inferred from the circumstances, direct proof is not necessary

Question 17

Parallel action

Answer 17

PARALLEL ACTION IS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A CONSPIRACY.

• Always ask if there is a case involving multiple parties to a crime, are they acting together based on an agreement or are they acting independently, albeit parallel to one another.

Question 18

MPC 5.03

Conspiracy

Answer 18

1. A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person(s) to commit a crime if with the PURPOSE of facilitating its commission he:
   
   1. Agrees with such other person that they or more than one of them will engage in conduct which constituted such crime or attempt or solicitation to commit such crime, or
   2. Agrees to aid such person in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicittion to commit such crime.
2. OVERT ACT. NO PERSON MAY BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY to commit a crime, OTHER THAN a felony of the first or second degree, UNLESS an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy is alleged and proven to have been done by him or by a person with whom he conspired.

Question 19

Overt Act Requirement Overview

Answer 19

• Don’t need an overt act for the most severe felonies,
• Overt act requirement IS MUCH LOWER than the substantial step required for attempt,
• Once there is an agreement you are liable FOR THE OVERT ACTS OF YOUR CONSPIRATORS regardless of whether you are aware of them.
• Overt act can be done by ANY member of a conspiracy - don’t need an overt act for each member.

Question 20

State v. Bertling

Answer 20

Telphone conversation in which the agreement was made and which then extended to include details on how to carry out the kidnapping = Agreement AND Overt Act in one.

Question 21

MPC 5.01(7)

Renunciation of criminal purpose

(Conspiracy)

Answer 21

It is an affirmative defence that he actor, after conspiring to commit a crime:

• thwarted the success of the conspiracy,
• under circumstances mannifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of purpose.

(7) Duration of Conspiracy.
(c) if an individual abandons the agreement, the conspiracy is terminated as to him only if and when he advises those with whom he conspired of his abandonment or he informs the law enforcement authorities of the existence of the conspiracy and of his participation therein.

Question 22

People v. Lauria

Answer 22

With respect to misdemeanors, porsitive knowledge of the supplier that his goods or services are being used for criminal purposes DOES NOT, without more, establish an intent to participate in the misdemeanors.

• Must have PURPOSE/INTENT to FURTHER the illegal activity, not mere knowledge of its existence,
• NEVER with misdemeanors

Question 23

Infering purpose/intent from knowledge

Answer 23

We may infer purpose from knowledge when the crime IS NOT a misdemeanor and:

1. If the person knows item will be used to commit a serious crime.
2. There is no legitimate use for the goods or services OTHER THAN the illegal activity,
3. When the defendant has a stake in the illegal opportunity,
4. When the volume of business is GROSSLY disproportional to any legitimate demand, or
5. The aggravated nature of the crime

Question 24

Mens Rea for conspiracy

Answer 24

Conspiracy

Conduct = Purpose (to agree)

AC = Policy punt

Result = Purpose