10/24 Accomplice liability: Judge Learned Hand is instrumental in deciding these cases NOT A CRIME BUT A THEORY UNDER WHICH PEOPLE ARE CHARGED FOR SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES Mens rea needed both for the accomplice and principal (actual perpetrator) Group criminality imposes a higher degree of danger There is a difference between this and conspiracy Hicks v. United States Supreme Court of United States 1893 Facts: John Hicks (defendant) and Andrew Colvard were riding on horseback. Hicks and Colvard saw Stand Rowe (defendant) sitting on his horse with a rifle in his lap. Colvard rode up to Rowe, leaving Hicks 30 to 40 feet behind. Colvard and Rowe had a discussion. During that time, Rowe raised his rifle, pointed it at Colvard, and then lowered it on two different occasions while Hicks laughed aloud. Then, according to witnesses, Hicks said to Colvard, "[T]ake off your hat, and die like a man." Rowe then raised his rifle a third time and pointed it at Colvard. Rowe fired the rifle, and Colvard was killed. Rowe and Hicks rode off together. Both Hicks and Rowe were charged with murder, but Rowe was killed prior to trial. At trial, Hicks testified that he had not encouraged Rowe to shoot Colvard and, in fact, that he had tried to discourage Rowe from shooting. Additionally, Hicks testified that the only reason he rode away with Rowe was out of fear for his own life. Rule of Law: 1. A person who is present at the scene of a crime committed by someone else, and who says or does something that encourages the other person to commit the crime, is not guilty as an accessory to a crime unless the person intended his or her words or acts to aid and abet. 2. A person who previously conspired with another to commit a crime is guilty as an accessory if he was present when the other person committed the crime, even if he did nothing at the scene to aid or abet. NEED: intent, and commonality of purpose. High bar for the prosecution. State v. Gladstone Supreme Court of Washington 1970 Facts: Thompson was hired by the Tacoma Police Department to purchase marijuana from Bruce Gladstone (defendant). While at Gladstone's residence, Thompson asked to purchase marijuana, but Gladstone replied that he did not have enough to sell. Instead, Gladstone suggested Thompson purchase the marijuana from Kent. Gladstone gave Thompson the address for, and a map to, Kent's home. Thompson subsequently purchased marijuana from Kent at his residence. There was no evidence of any communication between Gladstone and Kent. However, Gladstone was found guilty of aiding and abetting Kent in the unlawful sale of marijuana. Gladstone appealed. Rule of Law: Mere communication to the effect that another might or probably would commit a criminal offense does not amount to aiding or abetting should the offense ultimately be committed.
No nexus of intent between the accused and the party who sold the drugs. The principal has to be aware, and KNOW