- Principal in 1st degree: Person who committed the crime
- Principal in 2nd degree: person who assists and is at scene (lookout/getaway)
- Accessory before the fact: Not at scene, but can be the mastermind
- Accessory after the fact: NG of underlying crime; but AATF is a crime itself (still)
Modern Accomplice Liability: Unlike Conspiracy (Doesn’t Req Clear Agreement) - Common Law: Rejected in Modern Times
- Principal in 1st degree: Person who committed the crime
- Principal in 2nd degree: person who assists and is at scene (lookout/getaway)
- Accessory before the fact: Not at scene, but can be the mastermind
- Accessory after the fact: NG of underlying crime; but AATF is a crime itself (still)
- Focuses on ∆’s state of mind + the assistance offered
Gov proves: (1) commission of offense by the principal (2) ∆ shared principal’s intent for crime to take place; (3) some action to further crime (even if just encouragement)
- No crime of aiding and abetting: once you are found party to the crime you are responsible for the principal crime
- However, there is a crime of accessory after the fact: GOV PROVES (1) Knowledge of crime (2) Intent to assist (3) some act of assistance
- Note: accomplice can be guilty of higher offense if they are the brains (higher state of mind than what is needed for the muscle of the crime)
Federal Statute: 18 USC § 2: “Whoever directly commits any act constituting an offense defined in any law of the US, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures its commission, is a principal”
Can a principal be acquitted and a aider/abettor be found guilty?
- Courts answer this differently
- SCOTUS says: 2 different decisions is completely fine: see Standefer
- In NC: acquittal of principal = acquittal of parties
- In GA: acquittal of principal can be used as relevant evidence (usually walks)
Cases
- Standefer v. United States: SCOTUS 1980
- Standard bribery case (usually tried together); bribed IRS agent w/ vacations; charged w/ A&A of taking bribes
- ∆ moves to get dropped the charges that the IRS agent was acquitted of
- Issue: Can an aider/abettor still be convicted when the principal was acquitted?
- Rule: Yes: the jury in present case can still find that that principal = G (even if in his own trial, he wasn't): collateral estoppel doesn’t apply in criminal law: the issue can be relitigated in determining the A&A’s guilt
- “While symmetry in jury decisions is desirable, it is not necessary”
- State v. Gladstone - Wash. 1970 : State of Mind Req for Parties
- State of mind case: undercover asks ∆ where to buy MJ: he gives him name, draws map of how to get there
- Convicted of A&A in sale of MJ: Issue is whether or not he had req’d mens rea
- ∆ NG bc state can’t prove he had any desire/intent for sale to take place
- “Dangerous precedent if mere communication that another might be willing to commit crime = aiding and abetting the commission of the crime”
- United States v. Garguilo - 2nd Cir. 1962 : Is Knowledge + Presence sufficient?
- ∆ convicted of counterfeiting $$, Q is about Macchia (the co∆): is knowledge of crime + presence sufficient to establish guilt
- Faulty jury instruction case: Judge told jury that that ^^ was sufficient
- Rule: That was wrong: To prove an A&A case, you must prove some purposeful intent/ desire for the crime to come to fruition:
- NOTE: Presence + Knowledge= sufficient if he did something to further crime
- Commonwealth v. Feinberg - Pa 1969 : The Sterno Case
- Sold sterno (knowing alcoholics drank them) at corner store in Philly skid row; his order was filled w/ more potent form of sterno (claims he didn’t know at first but giant skulls on them); he sold 400 cans but returned rest
- 31 people died, he is charged w/ 31 counts of IVMS (died in prison)
- Holding: ∆ G bc he knew the products weren’t being used as they should.
- This shows reckless disregard for human life
- Marcus belief: If you want to make sale of legal item illegal, then you need a statute about it/ imposing regulations.
- United States v. Kelley - 4th Cir. 1985 : Act requirement for A&A
- Created org teaching individuals how to evade taxes; charged w/ aiding in false w4 claims;
- Issue: If he never, pen in hand, helped in preparing the tax forms, can he be G
- Holding- yes, he can
- Rule: If knowledge of crime + intent for it to be carried out + action (he encouraged it) is sufficient
- People v. Poplar - Mich Ct App 1969: Accomplice Liability
- ∆ charged with b&e/assault w/ intent to commit murder as an accessory; someone was shot; he claims he can’t be held accountable for that; court says, not true, ∆ G bc accomplice liability
- Rule: In Minn: Aider/abettor liable for any offense committed that was reasonably foreseeable
- Marcus says: they are applying a negligence standard to assault w/ intent to commit murder (basically the felony murder rule except for victim didn’t die)
- State v. Fornella - Withdrawal as an accomplice
- Boy was part of group, going to steal and math test; he left before completed (realized it was wrong and left
- He is charged w/ them
- State says: for successful withdrawal, you must let the others know AND it must be effective (alert authorities)
- Note: WITHDRAWAL To establish withdrawal (assuming burden on ∆, he must prove (1) that he did withdraw, (2) communicated his intent to the other ∆s and (3) that it is effective (alert authorities); and in modern times (4) that you were doing it in good faith
Rape TENN CODE ANN §39-13-503 A rape = unlawful sexual penetration of a victimby a ∆ or of the ∆ by a victim accompanied by any of the following cirumstances: - Force or coercion used to accomplish the act
- The sexual penetration is accomplished w/o consent of victim and ∆ knows that the victim didn’t consent
- The ∆ knows or has reasom to know that the victim is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless
- Or: sexual penetration is commited by fraud
| MPC § 213.1 Rape and Related Offenses Rape. A male who has sexual intercourse w/ a female not his wife is guilty of rape if: - he compels her to submit by force/threat of death, serious injury, pain or kidnapping, to be inflicted on anyone; or
- he has substantially impaired her power to appraise or control her conduct by drugging her, intoxicating her
- the female is unconscious
- female is less than 10 years old
Note: this hasn’t been adopted by states, was outdated even when created, reflected common law |
- Intercourse (any kind of penetration) + by a man against a woman + by force or threat of force + with no consent
- Part of “by a man against a woman has been taken out in modern statutes
- Old definitions include “Carnal knowledge”, “man against woman not his wife”
- Historically, woman had to prove she resisted to determine if it was sufficient force to establish rape.
Modern day elements (taken from TN statute): Rape is unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the ∆ or of the ∆ by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances
- Force/coercion
- Sexual penetration accomplished w/o consent of victim and ∆ knows no consent
- ∆ knows or has reason to know that victim is mentally incapacitated of physically helpless
- Sexual penetration commited by fraud
Note: in VA, took out “consent” : ∆ must prove consent if they believe they had it (becomes an affirmative defense): but they left in “penetration by force or threat of force”
Rerforms in Rape:
- Re-assessing the statute of limitations
- Statutes are less and less gender specific
- Marital exemption (20+ states still treat marital rape differently w/ penalties + needs to be reported sooner)
- Victims rights
- Name of the crime
- Degrees of crime- some states add these bc not one size fits all
- Shield Statutes: reputation evidence related to victims prior sexual conduct shall not be admitted in evidence in prosecution.
Cases:
- State in Interest of M.T.S. - NJ 1992
- Judicial opinion explaining the changes in the law about rape
- Burden of proof of non-consent used to be on women (resistance was used to establish this”
- Women had to resist to the extent of her ability
- Prompt complaint was necessary
- Needed strong evidentiary support: testimony was not enough
- People v. Iniguez - Cal 1994
- Woman raped while she feigned sleep by her aunt’s husband; victim panicked and froze; ∆ admits she didn’t consent
- Issue: Rape conviction possible w/ evidence that force or threat of force used?
- Holding: Fear establishes this; fear is subjective and objective (she was afraid + it was reasonable to be afraid)
- Also, fear of force satisfies the force requirement
- Commonwealth v. Caracciola - Mass 1991
- ∆ pretended to be police officer; picked up a woman, made her drive; threatened arrest; stopped at park and asked her to have sesx with him
- Issue: ∆ argues there is no force or threat of force used
- Rule: fraudulent inducement can satisfy force/threat requirement
- Dissent: conviction unwarranted under the badly-drafted statute: rule of lenity tells us ∆ should be acquitted; push legislature to change statute afterwards.
Homicide Elements of Murder - ACT: Affirmative act or omission of act
- MENS REA: Malice aforethought + 4 possible intents
- FIRST DEGREE- Intent to kill + Premeditation/Deliberation
- SECOND DEGREE [Common Law Murder]: Req’s Malice (shown in 4 ways:)
- Intent to kill
- Intent to inflict bodily harm
- Gross Recklessness (malignant heart)
- Felony Murder (sometimes elevated to 1st degree by statute)
Cases:
- State v. Fierro - AZ 1979 What is Death
- ∆ shot man, who didn’t die until 4 days later, when life support turned off; ∆ argues he can’t be guilty of murder1 bc removal from life support
- Problem: AZ didn’t have def of “death” should have deferred to common law, which they didn’t (judge created new def.- can they do that? Not supposed to)
- Common law def was the circulation of blood
- Rule: Wounds don’t need to be direct COD; sufficient that they cause death indirectly through chain of natural effects + causes unchanged by human action
- Holding: ∆ is G
- Note: used to be a year and day rule for homicide: victim had to die w/ the year
- Cruzan v. Missouri Dept of Health SCOTUS 1990
- Car accident ; victim was put in hospital; parents asked them to withdraw nutrition + hydration tubes; they refused; still had functioning brain stem (controls regulation of body) but no upper brain activity (everything else)
- Issue: is it wrong for health dept to req evidence/proof of incompetent’s wishes to be withdrawn from life support
- Holding: State is entitled to a judicial proceeding to make a determination about the woman; constitution doesn’t forbid it; health dept is allowed
- Note: doesn’t deal w/ broader issue: this decision is usurped by following 2
- Washington v. Glucksberg - SCOTUS 1997
- Surrounding a Washington statute forbidding physician assisted suicide
- Issue: Do we have the right to receive assistance to end our own life?
- Rule: It isn’t a violation of constitutional rights to forbid assisted suicide, but Court says debate should continue
- Court said that for now, issue will be deferred to legislature’s decision
- Vacco v. Quill - SCOTUS 1997
- Same case as Glucksberg but w/ NY: Part of conjoined opinion
- Court of Appeals said statute banning it was unconstitutional (violated equal protection clause of 14th amendment) Supreme court overrules this.
- W/ Current “Death w/ Dignity” statutes:: requires person to be an adult, often with < 6 mo to live, needs written recommendation, they must self administer
- What is Life | Keeler v. Superior Ct.
- Severely injured ex-wife and killed her unborn baby:
- Issue: CA code calls for murder to be of a human being: do fetus’s count?
- Rule of Leniency: if not clear what legislative intent was, must be construed in favor of ∆
- Ex Post Facto laws: retroactively applying laws to crimes that were committed before they were written: court says if they were to allow judicial enlargement of the statute, it would be ex post facto
- Holding: The statute does not extend to the killing of an unborn fetus.
- Chavez case: baby born alive, bled to death through umbilical chord
- Intent to Kill - State v. Gary - Conn 2005
- Murder by transferred intent; court finds that all that is required is a general intent to commit murder (even if 3d person is murdered instead)
- Intent to inflict GBH | State v. Thompson - LA 1991 First Degree Murder- GBH
- Robbed a church, beat the pastor and killed him: ∆ argues he cannot be prosecuted for 1st deg murder bc they cannot prove he had intent to kill/ cause great bodily harm (they don’t know if the metal pipe he had was used)
- Rule: It isn’t instrument used, but severity of injuries that establishes sufficient proof of specific intent to inflict great bodily harm.
- Note: IN LA- intent to commit GBH is sufficient for 1st degree murder.
- Intent to inflict GBH | People v. Geiger - Mich Ct. App. 1968
- Man beat his wife, drove around with her in back knowing she was very close to death/aspirating on vomit: makes a comment that he’s facing a “murder rap”; waits 8 hours to get her to hospital
- Issue: evidence that ∆ had intent to cause GBH w/ attendant likelihood that death could result from the harm?
- Holding: gap in time bt injuries and seeking help establishes he had intent to cause GBH
- Depraved Heart - Gross Recklessness | People v. Knoller - CA 2007
- Dog bite case; they were told by vet that dogs were very dangerous
- Appeals over jury instruction
- Correct jury instruction: did ∆ acted with a “conscious disregard for human life”
- Depraved Heart-Gross Reckless | People v. Tseng - Cal Ct. App. 2018
- 3 cts of 2nd deg murder for gross recklessness; doctor who gave out opioids; overall 9 patients died;
- Depraved-heart murder different from IVMS bc it requires that the ∆ themself knew of the risk (instead of just a reasonable pearson should have known) and chose to act w/ a disregard towards human life
- Prior actions/words/etc prove that she had implied malice