Someone else can be liable for someone else's crimes
This liability can arise in to ways:
(1) When an actor is liable for someone else's conduct (complicity)
(2) When the relationship between two parties makes one party criminally liable for another party's conduct (vicarious liability)
Complicity
Complicity established when you can be criminally liable for someone else's conduct. It applies criminal liability to accomplices and accessories because they participate in crimes.
Vicarious liability
Vicarious liability establishes when a party can be criminally liable because of a relationship.
Vicarious liability transfers the criminal conduct of one party to another because of their relationship.
Most vicarious liability involves business relations
At common law, there were four parties to crime:
(1) Principals in the first degree: Persons who actually commit the crime.
(2) Principals in the second degree: Persons present when the crime is committed and who commit it (lookouts and getaway drivers)
(3) Accessories before the fact: Persons not prese
Today, there are two parties to crime:
(1) Participants before and during the commission of crimes.
(2) Participants after crimes are committed.
Accomplices
All participants before and during the commission of a crime (accomplices) are prosecuted for the crime itself (accomplices to murder are prosecuted as murderers).
Accomplice liability
Participation before and during a crime (accomplice liability) is a very serious business, because the punishment for being an accomplice is the same as for the person who actually committed the crime.
Accessory liability
Participation after crimes are committed (accessory liability) is prosecuted as a separate, minor offense (accessory to murder).
Accessories
Accessories are punished for misdemeanors, a much less serious offense because accessories are looked at as obstructors of justice, not as felons.
Conspiracy
Conspiracy is an agreement to commit some other crime. A conspiracy to commit murder is not murder; it's the lesser offense of agreeing to commit murder.
Pinkerton rule
The rule that the crime of conspiracy and the crime the conspirators agree to commit are separate offenses is called the Pinkerton rule.
Pinkerton v. U.S. (1946)
Pinkerton brothers conspired to evade taxes. They were found guilty of both conspiracy to evade taxes and tax evasion itself. Justice Douglas wrote the opinion of the Court that said the conspiracy to commit and the the commission of the offense are separ
How much aid is enough to be considered an accomplice?
(1) Providing guns, supplies, or other instruments of crime
(2) serving as a lookout
(3) driving a getaway car
(4) sending the victim to the principal
(5) preventing warnings from getting to the victim
Words can also qualify as accomplice actus reus, if t
Mere presence rule
According to the mere presence rule, even presence at the scene of a crime followed by flight is not enough action to satisfy the actus reus requirement of accomplice liability.
Exception to the mere presence rule:
when defendants have a legal duty to act, presence alone is enough to satisfy the actus reus requirements
Backun v. U.S. (1940)
knowingly selling the stolen property was good enough
U.S. Peoni (1938)
defines the men rea of accomplice liability. Simple knowledge is not enough.
Accessory after the fact
Accessory after the fact have four elements:
(1) the accessory personally aided the person who committed the crime (the actus reus element)
(2) the accessory knew the felony was committed (mens rea element)
(3) the accessory aided the person who committed
Elements of vicarious liability
(1) actus reus: (a) relationship and (b) acts of the other parties to the relationship
(2) mens rea: purpose, or knowledge, or recklessness, or negligence, or strict liability
(3) circumstance: (if any required by statute)
concurrence between these elemen
State v. Ulvinen
Ulvinen convicted of 1st degree murder: accomplice liability.
Words situation-->approve/encourage (actus reus) and active.
Courts-->passive acquiessence.
U.S. v. Peoni
Must show accomplice purposive attitude--he needed to participate in it and his action to make it succeed.
State v. Chism
Chism could have walked away but he destroys evidence and only reports it to police when his mom told him to. He is guilty of aiding Ira to avoid prosecution-->he is accessory-after-the-fact.
Dunn v. Commonwealth
Grand Larceny.
accessory after the fact.
State v. Tomaino (1999)
An attempt to attach vicarious liability to store owner. Court says no because vicarious liability has to be done by statute--> no statute that says owner has to supervise employees-->problem with due process.
State v. Akers (1979)
Court says no parent vicariousness because there is no actus reus.
Statue could have said "negligence to properly supervise.