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.
