Common Law - Accomplice Liability
Accomplice Liability Analysis
1. Did the primary party commit an offense?
a. A conviction of the primary party is not required since the lack of a conviction does not mean that the crime did not occur.
b. The acquittal of the primary party bars the conviction of the accomplice if the primary party was acquitted based on a justification defense (as opposed to an excuse defense).
c. Innocent Agency Doctrine: One who effects a criminal act through an innocent and unwitting agent is a principal.
2. Did the secondary party commit the actus reus of accomplice liability?
a. Solicited another person to commit the offense, assisted in its commission, encouraged its commission, or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent its commission
i. Attempting to aid is not sufficient
3. Did the secondary party have the required mens rea for accomplice liability?
a. The secondary party must have the intent to promote or facilitate the primary party to engage in conduct that forms the basis of the offense
i. The required intent can be inferred from knowledge under certain circumstances. See People v. Lauria
b. The secondary party must have whatever mental state is required -- intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, negligently, etc. -- for the commission of the substantive crime with regard to the results of the primary party’s conduct
i. The required intent can be inferred from knowledge under certain circumstances. See People v. Lauria.
4. Causation
a. A defendant can be liable as an accomplice even if the primary party would have committed the offense without the defendant’s assistance.
Accomplice Liability: Common Law
1. General Principles
a. A secondary party is an accomplice of the primary party if she intentionally assists the primary party in committing a crime
b. The term “assist” includes soliciting another person to commit the offense, assisting in its commission, encouraging its commission, or failing to perform a legal duty to prevent its commission
c. An accomplice may be convicted of any offense committed by the primary party with the accomplice’s intentional assistance (derivative liability).
d. Attempting to aid is not sufficient (unlike MPC)
2. Elements
a. Actus Reus
i. Secondary party’s assistance.
ii. Solicited another person to commit the offense, assisted in its commission, encouraged its commission, or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent its commission.
1. Mere presence or prior knowledge is not enough
b. Mens Rea - dual intent:
i. Intent to aid the primary party AND
1. An undisclosed intention to render aid if needed will not suffice. Nor is mental approval of the actor’s conduct.
ii. Intent that such assistance result in the commission of the offense charged.
iii. People v. Lauria
1. As in conspiracy, required intent can be inferred from knowledge under certain circumstances:
a. Knows of the crime AND
b. She has the purpose that the crime occur OR
c. The offense involved is “very serious” OR
d. She has a “stake” in the crime, meaning:
i. She charges the criminal above market price
ii. Sales for illegal use amount to a high proportion of the profits;
iii. There is no legitimate purpose for the type of goods supplied under the circumstances of the case; or
iv. There is no legitimate purpose for the volume of goods supplied under the circumstances of the case.
3. Corroboration Rule
a. Conviction may not be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless his testimony is corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the D with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.
4. Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine
a. A person encouraging or facilitating the commission of a crime can be held liable not only for that crime, but for any other offense that was a “natural and probable consequence” of the crime the person aided.
b. Analysis
i. Did the primary part commit the target offense?
ii. If yes, was the secondary party an accomplice in the commission of the target offense?
iii. If yes, did the the primary party commit another crime or crimes beyond the target offense?
iv. If yes, were the latter crimes, “although not necessarily contemplated at the outset, reasonably foreseeable consequences of the original criminal acts encouraged or facilitated by the aider and abettor?”
5. Liability of the Accomplice vs. the Principal
a. For an accomplice to be guilty of a crime, there must have been a crime committed by another person from whom the accomplice’s liability originates.
b. A conviction of the primary party is not required since the lack of a conviction does not mean that the crime did not occur.
6. Abandonment Defense
a. The common law didn’t recognize an abandonment defense to accomplice liability, but many jurisdictions now permit the defense
b. Defendant must voluntarily and completely renounce involvement in a crime and make a substantial efforts to prevent it.
MPC - Accomplice Liability
Accomplice Liability Analysis
1. Did the primary party commit an offense?
a. A conviction of the primary party is not required since the lack of a conviction does not mean that the crime did not occur.
b. The acquittal of the primary party bars the conviction of the accomplice if the primary party was acquitted based on a justification defense (as opposed to an excuse defense).
c. Innocent Agency Doctrine: One who effects a criminal act through an innocent and unwitting agent is a principal. 2.06(2)(a)
2. Did the secondary party commit the actus reus of accomplice liability?
a. Solicits such other persons to commit it; or
b. Aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; or
c. Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make the proper effort to do so.
3. Did the secondary party have the required mens rea for accomplice liability?
a. The secondary party must have the intent to promote or facilitate the primary party to engage in conduct that forms the basis of the offense
b. The secondary party must have whatever mental state is required -- intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, negligently, etc. -- for the commission of the substantive crime with regard to the results of the primary party’s conduct
4. Causation
a. A defendant can be liable as an accomplice even if the primary party would have committed the offense without the defendant’s assistance.
Accomplice Liability: MPC
1. Elements
a. Mens Rea
i. Purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense
1. Knowledge alone is insufficient
b. Actus Reus
i. Solicits such other person to commit it; or
ii. Aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; or
1. Aid includes common law “assist:” assisting in commission of offense, encouraging its commission
iii. Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make a proper effort to do so
2. MPC Rejects Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine
a. Except for 210.2 presumption regarding recklessly killing while in commission of a specified crime
3. Abandonment Defense
a. MPC 2.06(6) recognizes an abandonment defense if the defendant terminates their complicity prior to the commission of the offense; and either
i. Wholly deprives it of effectiveness; or
ii. Gives timely warning to law enforcement authorities or otherwise makes proper efforts to prevent the crime
Accomplice Liability Analysis
1. Did the primary party commit an offense?
a. A conviction of the primary party is not required since the lack of a conviction does not mean that the crime did not occur.
b. The acquittal of the primary party bars the conviction of the accomplice if the primary party was acquitted based on a justification defense (as opposed to an excuse defense).
c. Innocent Agency Doctrine: One who effects a criminal act through an innocent and unwitting agent is a principal.
2. Did the secondary party commit the actus reus of accomplice liability?
a. Solicited another person to commit the offense, assisted in its commission, encouraged its commission, or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent its commission
i. Attempting to aid is not sufficient
3. Did the secondary party have the required mens rea for accomplice liability?
a. The secondary party must have the intent to promote or facilitate the primary party to engage in conduct that forms the basis of the offense
i. The required intent can be inferred from knowledge under certain circumstances. See People v. Lauria
b. The secondary party must have whatever mental state is required -- intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, negligently, etc. -- for the commission of the substantive crime with regard to the results of the primary party’s conduct
i. The required intent can be inferred from knowledge under certain circumstances. See People v. Lauria.
4. Causation
a. A defendant can be liable as an accomplice even if the primary party would have committed the offense without the defendant’s assistance.
Accomplice Liability: Common Law
1. General Principles
a. A secondary party is an accomplice of the primary party if she intentionally assists the primary party in committing a crime
b. The term “assist” includes soliciting another person to commit the offense, assisting in its commission, encouraging its commission, or failing to perform a legal duty to prevent its commission
c. An accomplice may be convicted of any offense committed by the primary party with the accomplice’s intentional assistance (derivative liability).
d. Attempting to aid is not sufficient (unlike MPC)
2. Elements
a. Actus Reus
i. Secondary party’s assistance.
ii. Solicited another person to commit the offense, assisted in its commission, encouraged its commission, or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent its commission.
1. Mere presence or prior knowledge is not enough
b. Mens Rea - dual intent:
i. Intent to aid the primary party AND
1. An undisclosed intention to render aid if needed will not suffice. Nor is mental approval of the actor’s conduct.
ii. Intent that such assistance result in the commission of the offense charged.
iii. People v. Lauria
1. As in conspiracy, required intent can be inferred from knowledge under certain circumstances:
a. Knows of the crime AND
b. She has the purpose that the crime occur OR
c. The offense involved is “very serious” OR
d. She has a “stake” in the crime, meaning:
i. She charges the criminal above market price
ii. Sales for illegal use amount to a high proportion of the profits;
iii. There is no legitimate purpose for the type of goods supplied under the circumstances of the case; or
iv. There is no legitimate purpose for the volume of goods supplied under the circumstances of the case.
3. Corroboration Rule
a. Conviction may not be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless his testimony is corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the D with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.
4. Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine
a. A person encouraging or facilitating the commission of a crime can be held liable not only for that crime, but for any other offense that was a “natural and probable consequence” of the crime the person aided.
b. Analysis
i. Did the primary part commit the target offense?
ii. If yes, was the secondary party an accomplice in the commission of the target offense?
iii. If yes, did the the primary party commit another crime or crimes beyond the target offense?
iv. If yes, were the latter crimes, “although not necessarily contemplated at the outset, reasonably foreseeable consequences of the original criminal acts encouraged or facilitated by the aider and abettor?”
5. Liability of the Accomplice vs. the Principal
a. For an accomplice to be guilty of a crime, there must have been a crime committed by another person from whom the accomplice’s liability originates.
b. A conviction of the primary party is not required since the lack of a conviction does not mean that the crime did not occur.
6. Abandonment Defense
a. The common law didn’t recognize an abandonment defense to accomplice liability, but many jurisdictions now permit the defense
b. Defendant must voluntarily and completely renounce involvement in a crime and make a substantial efforts to prevent it.
MPC - Accomplice Liability
Accomplice Liability Analysis
1. Did the primary party commit an offense?
a. A conviction of the primary party is not required since the lack of a conviction does not mean that the crime did not occur.
b. The acquittal of the primary party bars the conviction of the accomplice if the primary party was acquitted based on a justification defense (as opposed to an excuse defense).
c. Innocent Agency Doctrine: One who effects a criminal act through an innocent and unwitting agent is a principal. 2.06(2)(a)
2. Did the secondary party commit the actus reus of accomplice liability?
a. Solicits such other persons to commit it; or
b. Aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; or
c. Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make the proper effort to do so.
3. Did the secondary party have the required mens rea for accomplice liability?
a. The secondary party must have the intent to promote or facilitate the primary party to engage in conduct that forms the basis of the offense
b. The secondary party must have whatever mental state is required -- intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, negligently, etc. -- for the commission of the substantive crime with regard to the results of the primary party’s conduct
4. Causation
a. A defendant can be liable as an accomplice even if the primary party would have committed the offense without the defendant’s assistance.
Accomplice Liability: MPC
1. Elements
a. Mens Rea
i. Purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense
1. Knowledge alone is insufficient
b. Actus Reus
i. Solicits such other person to commit it; or
ii. Aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; or
1. Aid includes common law “assist:” assisting in commission of offense, encouraging its commission
iii. Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make a proper effort to do so
2. MPC Rejects Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine
a. Except for 210.2 presumption regarding recklessly killing while in commission of a specified crime
3. Abandonment Defense
a. MPC 2.06(6) recognizes an abandonment defense if the defendant terminates their complicity prior to the commission of the offense; and either
i. Wholly deprives it of effectiveness; or
ii. Gives timely warning to law enforcement authorities or otherwise makes proper efforts to prevent the crime
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire