United States v. Fountain Flashcards
“Helper”
Synonyms:
(1) Accomplish liability
(2) Abiding and abetting
(3) Complicity
The partial excuse of complicity
Way of regulating hard, NOT risk
-Complicity rest on that a “helper” is Derivative, not Vicariously, liable for the principal offense
Derivative liability: Based partly on the defendants owns actions
Vicarious liability: based on the relationship with someone else
Complicity as a partial excuse
“I merely helped”
“i didnt do it..he did”
I was there, but…”
Complicity elements
(1) The rear actor(helper/accomplice) knows the Front Actors (principle/criminal) criminal purpose
(2) The rear actors intents to FURTHER that purpose (SI that the front actor succeed in the target offense)
(3) Aids and encourages that purpose
The helper must be connected to the principal (knowing and encouraging/assisting the plan) AND to the offense
(Helpers relation to principal reflects Endangerment or Risk basis of liability)
(Helpers Relationship to the crime reflects the outcome or a harm basis)
Once you commit an element then you are no longer a helper but a principal. (charged for the whole crime ratehr then just part of the crime)
Hicks v. United States
Not complcity- Helper doesn’t conspire or encourage principal but goes along secretly, ready to help if necessary
Also: Not complicity if the helper actions could not have been successful in any case
United states v. Fountain
Facts:
Happened in jail, Gometz andHelped Silverstein out of handcuffs and provided him a shank with which he killed a person guard
Procedure:
Federal court:
Gometz and Silverstein tried together at the same trial, got murder and pay restitution
Gometz appealed to the appellate court saying that evidence was insufficient to convict him using aiding and abetting theory
Holding:
Majority (Judge POSNER) : Affirmed trial conviction
-Aiding and Abetting: Helping with the intent that the crime would succeed, share principle purpose
-Can’t say you didn’t know the purpose, why else would you unhandcuffed
Rear actor (Gometz) - Front actor(Silverstein,1st degree murdeer) - Voctim (Clutts)
Rear actors(Gometz) argument:
Insufficient to convict him or aiding and abetting:
-No mental state (He didnt know and if he did he was indifferent)
Courts disagree:
- There was a prearranged agreement between defendants
- Gometz must have known that Silverstein has already killed three people in prison thus it is likely that Silvertein will kill again
- uncuffing Silverstein supports that he was going to use the shank for deadly force not as defense
- Even if there was no SI for Gometz, Judge Posner cites (Lauria) b/c knowing of serious crimes is enough
Gometz conviction is affirmed.
People v. Lauria (persuasive)
A phone operator whose line was frequented by prostitutes was dismissed.
Judge Posner used this to say that knowing is NOT enough for trial/minor crimes but knowing for serious crimes is enough.
Indifferent helper : People v. Beeman
Beeman gave details on how to rob his sister and received a cut. But the robbers took more and he wanted more of the cut
While beeman admitted to telling the other he wouldnt interfere, he did not think he would actually commit the robbery
-CA supreme court rules that Beeman was NOT an accomplice to the robbery if he was indifferent to the principal robber’s plan
Burden of proof and Harmless Error: People v. Acero
Trail court erred instructing the jury (1) attempted murder can be implied malice (2) an acomplice to a crime knowingly aids, promotes, encourages or instigates the principal unlawful purpose.
Should have been told, BOTH principal and helper must have SI
The two standards:
Watson standard: If an error is of non-constitutional magnitude, the appellate court asks whether the prosecutor has demonstrated that there is a reasonable probability that the guilty verdict was not caused by an
error
Chapman standard: If error is of consititonal magnititude, the appellate court ask whether the prosecution had demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the guility verdict was not caused by error
The judge removed an element of the crime which is usally harmful
Helping versus Doing
Principal/perpetrator is anyone who is committing at least one element of the crime.
Aiding and abetting is assisting the crime not committing any part of the crime
Anyone outside the element of accomplice
Knowingly helping v. intentionally helping
Knowing helping = not complicity but could be perceived as SI (Fountain)
Helper: KNow the principal is doing and either offer encouragement or assistance with the SI of the completed crime
Elements of Complicity
(1) Encouragement or physical assistance. You cannot be indifferent(must be caught up with the plan/SI) BUT you can still help with indifference but get an unintended result
