This is an extract of our Aiding And Abetting document, which we sell as part of our Criminal Outlines collection written by the top tier of U.C. Berkeley School Of Law (Boalt Hall) students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Criminal Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
AIDING & ABETTING 1) CA MAKES ACCOMPLICE A PRINCIPAL IN THE OFFENSE 2) CA extends accomplice liability to 1) any reasonably foreseeable offense 2) carried out by the person the accomplice aids and abets - People v. Luparello, People v. Brigham 3) Minority: punish accessories-after-the fact as A&A 4) Policy for same charge a) Sometimes A&A is more dangerous than the principle (i.e. has culpable intent) b) We can deal with worry that A&A are less culpable at the sentencing phase i) Concern: our world of sentencing guidelines: judge discretion is decreased b/c of mandatory minimums c) Don't want to let rich guy that pays someone to shoot his wife to get away. i) Depraved heart + luxury of having someone else do dirty work = less culpable?
NO. d) Proof problems i) Easier for prosecution to prove someone guilty when group pulled trigger, but not sure who killed person. Good to have A&A as tool when we think all are morally culpable to be punished equally. 5) Complicity: theory of liability a) Either charged under the theory that you are principal b) Or under theory you are A&A c) Either way, you are charged with rape. 6) Common law: purposeful attitude toward the crime, not just the intention to commit the act that ended up happening. a) Encouragment = sufficient MR + some minimal aid i) Either communicated intent to aid (emboldening) (AR) ii) Or actual aid (even if uncommunicated) (AR) (1)No need for but-for causation (2)Mere presence is not enough b) MR: i) Purposeful or knowing for conduct (1)Or N&P ii) Same as statute for result iii) Courts split on Attendant Circumstances 7) MPC (2.06) a) MR i) Purposeful for conduct ii) Same as statute for result iii) Depends on policy underlying crime for Attendant Circumstances b) AR i) Must aid or attempt to aid ii) Can still be guilty of A&A or attempt A&A even if P doesn't complete or attempt offense iii) Can also be based on omissions 8) Issue of causation a) Why no but-for requirement?
i) Crashes into our notions of free will: impossible for govt to show causation when the link in causation is your persuasive effect on other human beings 9) A&A attempt - MPC 2.06(3) 10) Cal Penal Code SSSS 30-32 a) SS 30. The parties to crimes are classified as: 1. Principals; and, 2. Accessories.
b) SS 31. All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age of fourteen years, or persons who are mentally incapacitated, to commit any crime, or who, by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion the drunkenness of another for the purpose of causing him to commit any crime, or who, by threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so committed 11) 18 U.S.C.A. SS 2 a) (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal. b) Hicks v. United States (1893) - pg 593: Federal because it takes place on Indian Reservation. Rowe kills Colvard, Hicks is present. Says "take your hat off and die like a man." Hicks says this was said out of desperation, thinking both he and Colvard were going to die. He intended to say the words, but did not intend the words to mean kill him. i) Held: He would be punished as Principle if he was found to have A&A. The original jury instruction that focused only on his intent to say the words was incorrect: Jury should have been instructed that in intend his words to further the killing. 12) MPC 2.06: Liability for conduct of another; complicity (3) A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if: (a) with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he (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 (iii) having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make proper effort so to do; or (b) his conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his complicity. (4) When causing a particular result is an element of an offense, an accomplice in the conduct causing such result is an accomplice in the commission of that offense if he acts with the kind of culpability, if any, with respect to that result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense. (6) Unless otherwise provided by the Code or by the law defining the offense, a person is not an accomplice in an offense committed by another person if:
(c) he terminates his complicity prior to the commission of the offense and (i) wholly deprives it of effectiveness in the commission of the offense; or (ii) gives timely warning to the law enforcement authorities or otherwise makes proper effort to prevent the commission of the offense. (7) An accomplice may be convicted on proof of the commission of the offense and of his complicity therein, though the person claimed to have committed the offense has not been prosecuted or convicted or has been convicted of a different offense or degree of offense or has an immunity to prosecution or conviction or has been acquitted.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Outlines.