Part 2 Flashcards
Hicks v US (accomplice liablity), D present when Rowe shoots victim. Words exchanged beforehand. Rides off afterwards. Murder?
No. No MR. D needs to have intended words to aid and abet. No AR. Mere presence isn’t enough in the absence of a prior arrangement. If there had been prearrngement and presencence, that would be sufificient to encourage primary actor. No evidence of that here.
Hypo: D just watches killing and enjoys spectacle?
No. No MR or AR.
D watching and shouts “go get them” and atta boy! D wants them to kill.
Words with intent to encourage, so yes. AR met as long as words are heard.
D is willing to help, but there is no prearrangment and PA doesn’t know d is willing to help?
MR: probably met.
AR: Not met, because PA (primary actor) not aware of aid or encouragement.
D tells SR that he will help if necessary. Present but doesn’t help.
MR? Yes. PR? Yes.
State v Gladstone (accomplice liablity). Gives name of someone to by drug from. Draws map. Goes and buys drug. No evidence of communication between two sellers. Accomplice liablity?
No. There needs to be a vital nexus between D and PA (although this isn’t true if there is actual aid, such as bystander helping robber escape without robber knowing bystander is helping them). D however, must associate with venture, participate in it as something he wishes to bring about.
Not clear he wanted to aid in the purchase. Purpose is necessary.
This is the majority approach to conduct for accomplice liability
Rosemond v United States (accomplice liablity), Drug deal gone badly, someone pulls out gun and shoots. Accomplice liablity?
MR required is advanced knoweldge and active participation.
usually purpose is required. But, if a person “actively participated with whole knowledge of the circumstances constituting the charge of the offense, advanced knowedge is required.
This is minority view regarding conduct in accomplice liability
???
When you have incidental participation you need purpose (ex. you want there to be a gun), when you have active participation, you only need advanced knowledged (you know there is going to be a gun, and you go along with it. D has a choice, and makes it knowing there will be a gun).
Why usually purpose over knowledge?
Bad results under knowledge. Ex. Day laborer cleras fielding knowing it will be used as a landing strip for drug planes – just wants his ordinary paycheck.
Cars salesman sells cars off the lot knowing they will be used in bank robbery.
Merchant in clothig store sells a stocking knowing that it will be used as a mask to rob.
Merchant at hardware store sells screwdriver knowing it will be used as a jimmy in a burglarly.
State v McVay (accomplice liability result), knows there is something wrong with boiler. Passengers go out anyway. Boiler explodes. People killed. Accomplice to involuntary manslaughter?
Yes. MR required for involuntary manslaughter is negligence. D argues you can’t aid or encourage involuntary/negligent act.
Court says D must have purpose to aid or encourage the conduct of the primary actor, but only negligence with regard to the result of death.
This is the majority rule on result for accomplice liability
Accomplice liablity vs attempt for MR element?
Accomplice liablity requires a match. Attempt requires purpose.
People v Russel (accomplice liability), three D’s battling. Hit principal. Accomplice liablity for all three?
Required MR is recklessness. It is enough if they took up each other’s challenge, shared in the venture, and unjustifiably and jointly created a zone of danger. Then, each is responsible for their own acts and the acts of the other(s).
People v Abbot (accomplice liablity), drag race
Liable as accomplice because there wouldn’t have been a drag race if their was no agreement to be in the race.
People v Luparello (accomplice liablity), henchamn get info at any cost, henchman kill. Accomplice liability for murder?
Yes. Not only guilty of the crimes he intended to facilitate, but also guilty for any crimes that he “naturally, forseeably, and probably” (negligence) put in motion.
This is a minority rule.
People v Roy (accomplice liability, Luparello test), armed robbery during illegal gun sale based on referal.
Not guilty as accomplice. Conceivable but reasonably forseable that selling an illegal gun would lead to armed robbery.
Wilcox v Jeffrey (aid or encourage), Welcome sax player at airport, attend concert, and paid for ticket. Didn’t protest. Accomplice?
Yes. They aided or encouraged. It doesn’t matter that the concert would have happened regardless.
State v Tally (accomplice liablity, aid or encourage), blocks telegram warning of people searching for someone. Accomplice?
Yes. Doesn’t need to be but for cause. If it deprives the victim of even a single chance of life, that’s enough.
Hypo: Judge intercepts telegram, but killers don’t know this. Accomplice?
Yes.
Judge told the killers beforehadn that he would try to intercept. Judge fails. Still kill. Accomplice?
Yes. Encouragement beforehand.
Judge intends to help but never tells. Judge fails to intercept. Kill anyway. accomplice?
Under traditional approach “attempt” to aid is not enough. Under MPC approach (minority) a person is laible for attempt to aid if the crime happens.
Judge tells killer will intercept. Does intercept. Killers still fail. Accomplice liablity?
Traditional: No. If no crime completed, then no theory for accomplice liablity.
MPC: An attempt to aid includes an attempt to aid for a target crime not committed by the primary actor if it would have established complicity if the target crime had been completed.
J planning to kill S. You hope succeeds. Say nothing. S leaving, you convince them to stay so J can kill her. J kills her. J unaware you helped. accomplice?
Yes. You aided, and had purpose to aid.
You know J plans to kill S. Hope for success. Say, J, S is over there. J doesn’t hear you. Kills anyway. Accomplice?
No. AR not met. Your aid had no impact. Words alone must be heard by PA.
MR is met.
Under MPC apporach you are guilty because attempting to aid is enough.
J planning to race motorcycle through crowd. You want him to do it. You help tune motorcycel. J accidently kills S. reckless but not extremely reckless so involuntary manslaughter. Accomplice?
AR: met, you aided.
MR (conduct): Met. You had purpose to aid so J could drive through crowd.
MR (result): Met. MR for involuntary manslaughter is negligence and you had negligence.
J going to rally to pick pockets. Tell him to go for it. Knocks out S’s teeth while dong so. Accomplice liablity for battery?
Traditional approach: No.
AR met (encouraged). No MR> You did not have purpose to encourage John to commit battery.
Luparello approach: possibly.
Yes, if this was reaosnbly forseeable.
State v Hayes (accomplice liability), burglary of store. PA working with police. Accomplice liablity?
No. If there is no guilty primary actor who committed a crime, then there can be no guilty accomplice.
Innocent agent theory
If D does something through an innocent agent (child or someone tricked) to commit a crime, then D becomes the primary actor.
Vaden v State (accomplice liability), illegal hunting practices. Agent shoots from plane. Accomplice liablity?
Yes. agent is guilty because they went overboard, killing more than necessary, so accomplie guilty too.
What if agent’s justification defense worked?
Normally a justification defense by primary actor precludes liability. But, if the primary actor has an excuse or a policy defense, that would be considered personal to the primary actor and would not preclude accomplice liability.
Justification
Crosscutting defense. Ex. self-defense, defense of propoerty, necessity/choice of evils. There is no crime. There is no accomplice liability.
Excuse
Crosscutting defense. Ex. insanity, duress, diminsihed responsiblity. Wrong but not blameworthy. There is no crime. There is accomplice liability.
Extrinsic policy
Cross cutting defense. Ex. diplomatic immunity, entrapment, double jeopardy, statute of limitations. Actor is not held liable for policy reasons. There is accomplice liability.
C points gun at M to kill. S tosses gun to M. M kills C. S helped only because they want C dead. Accomplice liability?
No. M has justification defense.
S lies to M, says C trying to kill. M shoots without looking. Accomplice liablity?
No. But innocent agent theory. S liable as primary actor. M not liable.
M insane going to kill C. S stands look out. Liable?
M has instantity defense and will not be guilty. This doesn’t protect S, S is guilty as an accomplice.
S encourages foreign diplomat to kill C. Accomplice?
Yes. Extrinsic policy only protects diplomat.
Can an accan accomplcie bplice be found guilty of a more serious offense than the primary actor?
Yes. Ex. A provokes B into rage to get B to kill C. B can use provocation formulat to reduce to voluntary manslaughter. A accomplice to murder (if treated as partial excuse, or partial innocent agent). Partial jsutificatl???
Can PA be found not guilty but accomplice guitly?
Yes, if accomplice jury thinks PA was guilty.
Conspiracy
1) An agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime (AR) and 2) an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (AR), 3) intent to agree (MR), and 4) intent to further the criminal enterprise (MR)
not all jursidctions require over act.
Conspiracy MR
Purpose that conduct of the target offense occurs.
Circumstances undecided but must at least match MR of target offense.
Purpose that result of target offense occur.
Conspiracy vs attempt?
Consiracy requires less.
Procuedral consequences of consiracy
Option to forum shop when conspiracy takes place in multiple jursidcitons. Any act no matter how insignficant if it takes place in that jurisidction opens up the jursidciont.
In large conspiracy difficult for jury to keep track of what each individual did. Might just think they are all guilty.
All Ds tried together.
Can bring in more evidence when there is a conspiracy in regards to the typical hearsay exclusion.
SoL starts when the conspiracy stops (goals are accomplished or abandoned)`
United States v Alvarez (conspiracy), smuggling drugs. Nods head when asked if at pickup. Helped load household appliances. Part of conspiracy?
Yes. Weird place to unload plane and the location gives away that they are doings omething illegal. Especially in combination with the fact that they are dealing with a Columbia farm.
US v Apple, publishers all ask force Amazon to raise prices. Conspiracy?
Yes. Conspiracy can be inferred. Actions would be contrary to self-interst if done in the absence of an agreement.
J agrees with B to carry out piano from C’s house. J thinks B owns piano but is actually steal. B guilty of Conspiracy?
No. J must have purpose to steal and purpsoe (result) stealing to occur.
People v Lauria (accomplice liabity, intent to further the criminal enterprise), phone service for prostitutes. Part of conspiracy?
No. D has knoweldge, but court says D needed to hve been acting with puprose to further criminal enterprise (majority approach).
Court says you can infer purpose from knowledge if: K + stake in criminal venture, K + no other use bsieds criminal use, K + increases costs for people in criminal enterprise, K + disproportionate volume/sales.
Pinkerton doctrine
Each con-conscpirator may be held liable for all the crimes committed by a co-conspirator that are 1) in furtherance of the conspiracy and 2) reasonably forseable.
Pinkerton v US (conspiracy, not MPC), D in jail. W continues conspiracy. W commits substantive offense. Both charged with conspiracy and substance. Is D guilty?
Yes. Each co-conspirator may be held liable for all the crimes committed by a co-conspirator that are 1) in furtherance of the conspiracy and 2) reasonably forseeable.
