1. Criminal Law for the Criminal Justice Professional Norman M. Garland Third Edition Copyright © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. C H A P T E R 4 Copyright © 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2. Slide 4-2 4.1The Role of the Accomplice 4.2Actus Reus of Accomplice Liability 4.3Mens Rea of Accomplice Liability 4.4Extent of Accomplice Liability 4.5Relationship between the Principal Actor and the Accomplice 4.6Issues in Accomplice Liability C H A P T E R 4 Parties to a Crime

3. Slide 4-3 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES 1. Learn how an accomplice can aid and abet in a criminal activity. 2. Understand the difference between an accessory and a principal. 3. Know the difference between an affirmative act and an act of omission. 4. Explain how causation affects accomplice liability.

4. Slide 4-4 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES 5. Understand the mens rea of accomplice liability. 6. Describe the natural and probable consequences doctrine. 7. Learn how justifications and excuses affect accomplice liability. 8. Explain the difference between accessorial and conspiratorial liability. continued

5. Slide 4-5 4.1 The Role of the Accomplice Someone who knowingly and willingly associates in the commission of a criminal offense and who intentionally assists another in the commission of a crime. accomplice To assist or facilitate a person in accomplishing a crime. aid and abet accomplice liability The accountability of one individual for the criminal act or acts of another.

6. Slide 4-6 Common Law Distinctions One who is present at and participates in the crime charged or who procures an innocent agent to commit the crime. principal One who aids in the commission of a crime without being present when the crime is committed. accessory

7. Slide 4-7 Common Law Distinctions Principal in the First Degree principal in the first degree Usually the primary actor or perpetrator of the crime.

8. Slide 4-8 Common Law Distinctions Principal in the Second Degree principal in the second degree One who intentionally assists in the commission of a crime in his or her presence; such presence may be actual or constructive. constructive presence When an individual is within the vicinity of the crime and is able to assist the primary actor if necessary.

9. Slide 4-9 Common Law Distinctions accessory before the fact One who intentionally counsels, solicits, or commands another in the commission of a crime. accessory after the fact One who intentionally ids another whom he or she knows has committed a felony, in order for the person assisted to avoid criminal prosecution and punishment.

10. Slide 4-10 Figure 4.1: California Statute on the Definition of an Accomplice

11. Slide 4-11 Modern Parties to a Crime Common law created separate category of parties – aiders and abettors – Allowed judges to distinguish among felons and punish accessories less than principals – Under modern law, principals, aiders, abettors, and accessories prosecuted as principals

12. Slide 4-12 4.2 Actus Reus of Accomplice Liability Act that contributes to commission of a crime required for accomplice liability – Affirmative act or by omission Affirmative Acts – May be either physical assistance or psychological influence Any kind of aid made toward commission of an offense establishes accomplice liability

13. Slide 4-13 Acts of Omission Act of omission must be accompanied with intent to accomplishing the crime – MPC requires person to act with purpose of promoting or facilitating a crime to be held liable as an accomplice by an act of omission Mere knowledge of criminal act and failure to stop the crime not enough

14. Slide 4-14 Accountability MPC provides that person is an accomplice if s/he: – Solicits another to commit a crime. – “Aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing” a crime. – Has legal duty to prevent commission of a crime, but “fails to make proper effort to do so.”

15. Slide 4-15 Application Case – 4.1People v. Stanciel

16. Slide 4-16 4.3 Mens Rea of Accomplice Liability Person is an accomplice only if he or she: – Aids or assists another in the commission of a crime – Possesses the intent to support or encourage the commission of the crime – Intends that the primary party commit the underlying offense

17. Slide 4-17 Purpose and Knowledge MPC distinguishes between purpose and knowledge for accomplice liability – Purpose: mental state of intent makes one liable – Mere knowledge that act may facilitate crime does not necessarily establish accomplice liability criminal facilitation When an individual knowingly aids another, but does not truly have a separate intent to aid in the commission of the underlying offense.

18. Slide 4-18 Agents Provocateur and Entrapment agent provocateur Someone who intends for the principal to fail in his or her illegal venture and, because of this lack of causation, is not an accomplice. When officers or agents of the government, for the purpose of instituting a criminal prosecution against a person, induce an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime that he or she had not contemplated. entrapment – Ignorance of law not accepted as an excuse for accomplice liability

19. Slide 4-19 Figure 4.2: Kentucky Statute on Entrapment

20. Slide 4-20 Application Case – 4.2State v. Gladstone – 4.3Wilson v. People – 4.4United States v. Twigg

21. Slide 4-21 4.4 Extent to Accomplice Liability Extent of liability attributed to accomplice is important factor natural and probable consequences doctrine A doctrine that holds an accomplice liable not only for the offense he or she intended to facilitate or encourage, but also for any natural and foreseeable additional offenses committed by the principal to whom he or she is an accomplice.

22. Slide 4-22 Natural and Foreseeable Consequences Any additional criminal act necessary to accomplish criminal goal considered natural and foreseeable consequence MPC does not extend accomplice liability to crimes that were not agreed to, or to crimes the accomplice did not aid or intend

23. Slide 4-23 Negligent Acts Liability as an accomplice can extend to negligent and reckless conduct on part of the primary actor – Some jurisdictions refuse to extend accomplice liability to those who encourage negligent or reckless behavior

24. Slide 4-24 Application Case – 4.5People v. Luparello – 4.6Riley v. State

25. Slide 4-25 4.5 Relationship between Principal Actor and Accomplice Innocent Agent or Instrumentality innocent agent or instrumentality An object, animal, or person who cannot be culpable under the law, such as an insane person or a child, that is used by a principal to commit a crime.

26. Slide 4-26 4.5 Relationship between Principal Actor and Accomplice Innocent Agent or Instrumentality (continued) – Sometimes doctrine of innocent instrumentality difficult to apply When statute applies to only a certain class of people by definition Crime can be performed only by the person nonproxyable offense A crime that can be committed only through the actor’s own conduct and cannot be committed by an agent.

27. Slide 4-27 4.5 Relationship between Principal Actor and Accomplice Innocent Agent or Instrumentality (continued) – Courts aim to punish perpetrator who possesses the intent to accomplish the crime

28. Slide 4-28 4.5 Relationship between Principal Actor and Accomplice Feigning Primary Party – Converse of agent provocateur – Individual steps each person took in committing crime critical in determining whether an accomplice is criminally culpable Entrapment defense available only when conduct in question concerns a law enforcement officer or an agent of a law enforcement officer

29. Slide 4-29 4.5 Relationship between Principal Actor and Accomplice When the Principal Actor Is Acquitted – At common law, an accomplice could not be convicted of a crime unless the primary actor was convicted Various jurisdictions created statutes enabling prosecution of individuals for aiding and abetting the commission of a crime as long as a crime was committed Acquittal of the principal because of an excuse defense does not morally excuse a criminal action

30. Slide 4-30 Application Case – 4.7United States v. Walser – 4.8Vaden v. State – 4.9People v. Eberhardt

31. Slide 4-31 4.6 Issues in Accomplice Liability Limitations of and Defenses to Complicity: Abandonment Accomplice Liability versus Conspiracy: The Pinkerton Doctrine How Far Should Accomplice Liability Reach?

32. Slide 4-32 Limitations of and Defenses to Complicity: Abandonment To end liability as an accomplice, aider and abettor must abandon agreement MPC stipulates termination of complicity must be made prior to commission of the crime

33. Slide 4-33 Accomplice Liability versus Conspiracy: The Pinkerton Doctrine A conspiracy can exist with single criminal act as its goal A partnership in crime, defined as an agreement between two or more people to achieve a criminal purpose or to achieve a lawful purpose using unlawful means. Also called a common criminal enterprise. conspiracy

34. Slide 4-34 Accomplice Liability versus Conspiracy: The Pinkerton Doctrine Criminal liability based on conspiracy theory differs from accomplice liability agency theory The theory that all conspirators act as the agents of (and represent) their co-conspirators in a criminal scheme and are liable for all criminal acts committed by any of their co-conspirators.

35. Slide 4-35 Accomplice Liability versus Conspiracy: The Pinkerton Doctrine Accomplice liability can derive from encouragement, assistance, or sometimes mere knowledge – MPC rejects extended liability imposed by Pinkerton doctrine Pinkerton doctrine Doctrine that holds a person associated with a conspiracy responsible for any criminal act committed by a co- conspirator if the act is within the scope of the conspiracy and is a foreseeable result of the criminal scheme.

36. Slide 4-36 How Far Should Accomplice Liability Reach? Criminal liability for actions of another raises important public policy questions – If an individual can be liable for assisting in some small way in criminal conduct, what type of liability should be imposed on a industry that sell prescription drugs or firearms?

37. Slide 4-37 Application Case – 4.10Pinkerton v. United States