1. Chapter 6 Parties to Crime and Vicarious Liability

2. Introduction
There are two types of situations in which multiple parties are held liable for a crime:
Parties to a crime (complicity)
Vicarious liability

3. Parties to a Crime (Complicity)
The common law divided participants in a crime into:
Principles (actually present; carried out crime)
Accessories (assisted principles)

4. Common Law Parties (cont.)
Principles in the first degree
Principles in the second degree
Accessories before the fact
Accessories after the fact

5. Contemporary Parties to a Crime
Today, most states typically distinguish between two types of parties to a crime:
Accomplices (involved before & during crime)
Accessories (involved in assisting an offender after he/she commits a crime)

6. Parties to a Crime (cont.)
Derivative liability—the accessory’s guilt flows from the acts of the primary perpetrator of the crime
Pinkerton rule—provides that a conspiracy to commit a crime & the crime itself are separate & distinct crimes

7. Accomplice Liability: Actus Reus
Described variously as: aiding, abetting, encouraging, commanding, etc.
The actus reus element of accomplice liability is satisfied by even a relatively insignificant degree of material or psychological assistance.
The Mere Presence Rule—provides that being present & watching the commission of a crime is not sufficient to satisfy the actus reus element

8. Accomplice Liability: Actus Reus (cont.)
Exception to the Mere Presence Rule:
Being present during the commission of a crime can satisfy the actus reus element of accomplice liability when individuals possess a duty to intervene.
State v. Ulvinen (1981)

9. 6.1. You Decide: Cordeiro
Were all 15 male customers & the male bartender accomplices to the sexual attack on the victim? Why or why not?
How would you handle the case if you were the prosecutor? What charges might you bring against the various individuals?
How would you decide the case?

10. Accomplice Liability: Mens Rea
A conviction for accomplice liability requires that a defendant both assist & intend to assist in the commission of a crime.
Dual intents (when an accomplice is required to intend or possess the purpose that an individual commit a specific crime):
The intent to assist the primary party,
The intent that the primary party commit the offense charged.

11. Accomplice Liability: Mens Rea (cont.)
Individuals will not be held liable as accomplices for knowingly rather than purposely assisting in crimes.
Natural & Probable Doctrine—provides that a person encouraging or facilitating the commission of a crime will be held liable as an accomplice for the crime he/she aided & abetted as well as for crimes that are the natural & probable outcome of the criminal conduct

14. 6.2. You Decide: Manes
Would you charge Manes as an accomplice to the Columbine High School murders?
What about as accomplice to the shooters’ suicides?
Discuss the issues surrounding the criminal liability of Manes, if any, as provider of the weapons & ammunitions used in the Columbine High School shootings.

15. 6.3. You Decide: Miller
Was the (attempted) armed robbery during an illegal firearm purchase a “natural & probable” likelihood?
What did the court mean when stating that the “natural & probable” doctrine “presupposes an outcome within a reasonably predictive range?”
Should Roy also be held liable for the robbery based on the doctrine?

16. 6.4. You Decide: Williams
Did Williams possess the required criminal intent to be held liable for any of the murders?
If so, which one(s) & why; if not, which one(s) & why not?
Remember to rely on the elements needed to satisfy the mens rea requirement for accomplice liability.

17. Accessory After the Fact
Required Elements:
Commission of a felony
Knowledge (that the person committed a felony)
Affirmative act (to hinder the felon’s arrest)
Criminal intent (focused on hindering the detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, &/or punishment of the individual receiving assistance)

18. Accessory After the Fact (cont.)
Modern view—because accessories after the fact are involved following the completion of a crime, they should not be treated as harshly as the perpetrator of the crime or any accomplices

21. 6.5. You Decide: Thorpe
Are Thorpe’s friend, White, and his wife, Tracy, criminally liable as accessories after the fact?
Why or why not?

22. Vicarious Liability
Imposes liability on an individual for a criminal act committed by another person.
“They act & you are responsible.”
Used in order to hold employers & business executives & corporations liable for the criminal acts of employees.

24. Corporate Liability
In 1909 the US Supreme Court stated that the acts of employees “may be controlled in the interests of public policy, by imputing his act to his employer & imposing penalties upon the corporation for which he is acting.”
A corporate crime may result in the criminal conviction of the employee committing the offense as well as the extension vicarious liability to the owner & to the corporation.

25. Corporate Liability (cont.)
Primary tests for determining whether a corporation should be criminally liable under the statute:
Respondeat Superior (the Responsibility of a Superior)
Model Penal Code Section 2.07
Respondeat Superior extends vicarious criminal liability to a corporation for the acts of employees, even when such acts are contrary to corporate policy.

26. Public Policy
There is an increasing trend toward holding corporations criminally liable in order to encourage corporate executives to vigorously prevent & punish illegal activity.
Prevention of corporate misconduct is important for several reasons…such as?
What do you think? Should we hold corporations vicariously liable for illegal actions by their employees? Why or why not?
Commonwealth v. Koczwara (1959)

27. 6.6. You Decide: Tomaino
Should the owner of the rental store, Tomaino, be held criminally liable for his clerk’s actions—renting sexually-oriented videos to a 17 year old—while he was absent from the store?
Tomaino was convicted…do you think his conviction should be overturned? Could he constitutionally be sent to prison? How is this different than/similar to the Koczwara case?
What about the lack of a posted sign? Is this important? Why or why not?

28. Traffic Tickets
Most parking statutes consider the owner of the vehicle prima facie responsible for paying a ticket.
Basically then, unless one (vehicle owner) presents evidence that he/she was not responsible (not driving the car), he/she is presumed liable for the traffic ticket.
Commonwealth v. Rudinski (1989)

29. Parents About 17 states today have parental responsibility laws.
Parental responsibility laws generally hold parents responsible for the failure to take reasonable steps to prevent their child(ren) from engaging in serious or persistent criminal behavior.

30. Parents (cont.)
Social host liability laws hold adults liable for providing liquor to minors in their home in the event that an accident or injury occurs.
Teen party ordinances state that it is criminal for an adult to host a party for minors at which alcohol is served.
Williams v. Garcetti (1993)

31. Key Issues Parties to a crime (complicity) Vicarious liability
Common law parties
Modern/contemporary parties
Accomplices (before & during the crime)
Accessories (after the crime)
Derivative liability
Accomplice liability
Actus reus & mens rea requirements

32. Key Issues (cont.) Accessory liability Vicarious liability
Required elements
Vicarious liability
Corporate liability
Respondeat superior
Model Penal Code Section 2.07
Public Policy
Automobile liability (traffic tickets)
Parental liability
Parental responsibility laws & other statutes