People v. McCoy Flashcards
Transferability of Defense from Principal to Accomplice
Three approaches
(1) Derivative Liability(Topolewski): No crime in front, then no cime in rear
(2) Grafting(McCoy) :
- Defense is personal, not derivative
- Accomplice aids or encourages the harm that isn’t crime for principal for reasons that are personal to the principal and therefore do not benefit the accomplice
(3) MPC 501.(3)(Decker) = Any crime will be knocked down to attempt for accomplice
- Accomplice=attempt
Topolewski v. State - Derivative liability
R(Def) - P(undercover agent/employee)-V (Employer)
Holding: No theft of meat in front b/c Principal had permission, so Def could not have responsibility as the rear actor
- This is a derivative liability
- Under MPC 5.01, would be deemed attempted larceny on part of would-be accomplice and no crime on the part of the undercover agent/emoployee
People v. McCoy (CA)
Facts:
McCOy had been shot at, so he went back to the corner with Lakey to find friend, Hollered, thought guy had a gun, Lakey SHot, McCou killed one and hit one non-fatally
Procedure:
(1) Lakey and McCoy tried together in trial, jury convicted both with murder and attempted murder
(2) Lakey and McCoy appelaed to appellate court b/c incorrect jury instructions
(3) Appellate court reverses both Def convictions
(4) Prosecutor appealed the reversal of Lakey’s conviction to the high court
Holding:
(Majority (Justin CHIN): Reversed the appellate court, reinstated Lakey’s conviction
-McCoy’s wrong instruction of imperfect slef-defense doesnt effect Lakey. McCoy’s defense is personal
-Mental state of the doer is different than helper, helper just has to have SI that crime occurs, not the malice that principal needs
-Helpers and doer are not tied to each others convictions
People v. McCoy
Trail Court:
McCoy and Lakey were tried jointly
-McCoy testified that he shot in fear of being shot b/c someone had shot at him earlier at the same intersection
-The conviction was appealed for an improper jury
instruction
Court of appeal:
- Reversed McCoy’s murder and attempted murder convictions b/c the trial court prejudicially misinstructed the jury on McCoys theory of unreasonable defense, if accepted would reduce the crime to voluntary manslaughter and attempted voluntary manslaughter
- Reverse Lakeys murder on Derivative liability
- Two reasons:
(1) Under CA law: A defendant tried as an accomplice cannot be convicted of offense greater than that which the perpetrator is convicted when tried together
(2) On the record, could not be concluded to a reasonable certainty that any participant acted with malice to support murder or attempted murder
CA Supreme court:
- Grants the attorney general petition for limited review and reversed the judgment of the court of appeal
- they were prejudicially erroneous
Outcome: CA supreme court reversed the court of appeals reversal of Lakey’s murder and attempted murder convictions based on Grafting approach.
Grafting Approach
Accomplice must do soemthing (actus rea) and have a certain mental state (mens rea)
- when the person become part of the crininal activity via accomplice liability, he says, “your acts are my acts”
- But the accomplice is liable for his own acts and mental state
- it is possible for the accomplice to be charged with a higher degree of crime when the mens rea is more culpable
People v. Williams
Facts:
Victim and accomplice were struggling over a weapon that never fired, accomplice told sister to shoot the victim, which she did, killing him. The sister was acquitted (Defense of others) but accomplice was convicted of murder b/c the Williams used her sister as an innocent agent.
People v. Whom?
Lakey is the real party. Supreme court accepted the court of appeals conclusion as to McCOy, but granted review to resolve the issue as to whether the reversal of McCoys Conviction also revered Lakeys.
Defense personal to the principal
(a) A premeditated killing would be negated to second degree implied malice murder with the partial excuse of voluntary intoxication.
