Complicity

Complicity Notes and Questions Accessorial Act o Notes on State v. Ochoa Complicity and cause Harmony of purpose Before an accused may become liable as an aider and abettor he must share the criminal intent of the principal (court in Ochoa) The historical background of Ochoa places the problem of accomplice liability in the political cultural context of a major phase of labor relations in the American Southwest The judge offered to instruct the jury to disregard the testimony on what had happened at the meeting of the Spanish American hall effectively negating charges based on conspiracy because the evidence did not support a finding of an agreement to engage in the conduct described After short deliberation the jury returned a verdict acquitting all Ds except the three in the case The meaning of aiding and abetting State v. Tally The words aid and abet are pretty much synonyms of each other, the legal definition of aid is not different from its common place meaning. Aid means to assist to supplement the efforts of another. To abet is to incite or encourage a person to commit a crime Principals and accessories Modern approach to complicity imposing equal liability for accomplices and principals The early common law distinguished among parties to a crime, classifying some as principals and others as accessories Principal had two categories >>> The concept of presence was important Accessory before the fact Modern statutes have eliminated the procedural rule (that an accessory could not be tried or convicted before the conviction of the principal in the first degree) and other common law distinctions Model Penal Code 2.06 > also eliminates common law distinctions a Most states however, accessories after the fact still generally receive lesser punishment than other participants The US Code still contains a misprision law (18 USCA 4 [2000]) If someone has knowledge of actual crime of felony being committed and does not make it known can be fined 500 or up to three years in jail o Notes on State v. Tally

 o o

MPC 5.01(3) Attempted complicity Individual Responsibility for collective action > Moral issue Should we require proof of casual responsibility for harm before we blame and punish accessories for such harm? Christopher Kutz on moral question regarding WWII fire bombing Complicity as hypothetical or possible causation

Mens Rea of Complicity Notes on Beeman Notes on Etzweiler

State v. Ochoa

A person who acts in concert with another and shares a criminal intent is guilty of aiding and abetting State v. Ochoa 41 N.M. 589, 72 P.2d 609 (1937) Defendant > rioter Facts: D and two others were convicted of second degree murder for aiding and abetting the person who actually shot and killed the victim. o Ds (Velarde, Avitia and Ochoa). D Ochoa was chairman in meeting with Sheriff Carmichael regarding Navarro who was under arrest for breaking and entering a house. Committee asked to speak to Navarro. They were refused and told them that they could see Navarro at trial the next day o Carmichael and his deputies brought Navarro to Justice of the Peace, and there was a huge crowd there, the trial was postponed They attempted to take Navarro back to the jail but there was huge crowd including the Ds o The 3 Ds were at the front of the crowd. D Ochoa hit one of the sheriffs with a hammer when they emerged the back of the courthouse to go back to the jail D Avitia drew a pistol and rushed toward cops, and a tear gas bomb was thrown One of the Deputies was on the floor and being beaten and kicked by Avitia and Ochoa Gunshots were then fired Brother of D Velarde shot and killed Sheriff Carmichael The three were convicted of second degree murder as aiders and abettors in the death Statute: Issue: could the Ds be prosecuted as aiders and abettors? Holding: Yes Rule: A person is an aider and abettor if he or she shares the criminal intent of the principal and acts in concert with the principal. Reasoning: Avitia and Ochoa acted in concert with shooter when they kicked and beat the fallen Deputy. Although they did not know he intended to kill, they were aware of it when he fired shots. And the still continued their assault on the deputy. It was permissible that a jury infer that they shared the shooters intent because they kept the deputy from going to the aid of Carmichael. Avitia and Ochoa assisted

the shooter and adopted his intent. HOWEVER Velarde was not seen assaulting the deputy. His conviction was reversed. The other twos affirmed. Judgment: Dissent:

The Aid given by an aider and abettor must make the commission of the crime easier. State v. Tally 102 Ala. 35, 15 So. 722 (1894) Defendant > judge Facts: a telegram was sent to Ross warning him that his life was in danger, D sent a subsequent telegram telling that the warning not be delivered to Ross. o The Skeltons, relatives of D, set out to kill Ross. They were armed and angry with Ross for seducing their sister o D went to railway station where the telegraph office was and was waiting to see if a telegram would be sent A witness asked D if they should send assistance and D declined o Ross's relative entered the office and sent a telegram D wanted to stop the officer from sending the message but decided not to He instead send a follow up message telling the operator on the other end to disregard the previous message and say nothing o The telegraph operator went to find Ross to give him the message but couldnt' find him o The Skeltons instead found him and surprised and shot and killed him Statute: Issue: was D guilty of aiding and abetting Ross's murder? Holding: YES Rule: the assistance rendered by an aider and abettor does not need to be essential to the commission of the crime, but only sufficient to make the crime easier to accomplish Reasoning: D intended to aid the Skeltons and took steps that were calculated to aid them. Ds telegram deprived Ross of a chance he may have had to escape from Skeltons. D managed to delay the telegraph operator long enough for Skeltons to find and kill Ross. Ross would have been warned otherwise. Judgment: Removing D from office

State v. Tally

Dissent: not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that D intended to aid and abet the murder of Ross. And that the telegram would have been delivered in time if D had not sent his telegram.

People v. Beeman

Proof of intent to assist in the crime is required for aiding and abetting People v. Beeman 35 Cal. 3d 547, 199 Cal. Rptr. 60 (1984) Defendant > friend of robbers Facts: D was convicted as an aider and abettor and claimed that he did not intend to aid the commission of the crime. o Two men assaulted and robbed Ds sister in law and stole several pieces of jewelry o D was arrested while in possession of some of the jewelry and he gave info that led to arrest of the other two men o The two men testified that D assisted in the commission of the crime by providing them with a floor plan and telling them of contents of house and agreeing to dispose of the loot o One testified that D said before the robbery that he wanted no part of it and he was angry the robbery had been committed. Statute: Issue: was D entitled to a jury instruction regarding his state of mind? Holding: YES Rule: conviction for aiding and abetting requires proof that the D acted with the knowledge of the criminal purpose and with the intent of committing encouraging or facilitating the crime Reasoning: o The instruction that was given to jury only stated that knowledge is required but this is an incorrect statement of law. Intent is a necessary element of a conviction for acting as an aider and abettor and while intent may sometimes be inferred from knowledge of a criminal purpose, knowledge and intent are not invariably the same thing Substituting proof of knowledge for proof of intent would effectively eliminate intent as an element of the offense

If specific intent is required for a conviction of the principle offence the aider and abettor must share the specific intent An aider and abettor will share the specific intent when he or she knows the full extent of the principal's criminal purpose and gives aid with the intent and purpose of facilitating the commission of the crime Intent was central in Ds defense and failure to give that instruction was reversible error

Judgment: Reversed Dissent:

State v. Etzweiler

A Person can only be an accomplice to the crime he intended to facilitate State v. Etzweiler 125 N.H. 57, 480 A.2d 870 (1984) Defendant > car owner lent keys to drunk friend Facts: D lent his car to friend who was drunk and caused a fatal car accident o D was charged with negligent homicide as an accomplice Statute: Issue: Can D be charged as an accomplice to negligent homicide? Holding: NO Rule: An accomplice will be liable only for crimes that he or she intended to facilitate. Reasoning: the charge of negligent homicide requires a showing that the D was unaware of the risk of death created by his or her conduct and a conviction of aiding and abetting requires showing of intent ot assist in the commission of the crime. D cannot have intended to assist friend in commission of a crime friend did now know he would commit Judgment: indictment quashed Dissent: