CL Ch 6 PDF

Chapter 6: Parties to Crime and Vicarious Liability

Introduction

• Building Blocks of Criminal Intent:

  • Constitutional limits: Framework that constrains the type of criminal laws that can be enacted.

  • Actus Reus: The physical act of committing a crime.

  • Mens Rea: The mental intent to commit a crime.

  • Act and Intent Concurrence: Must prove that the action and intent occurred simultaneously.

  • Factual and Legal/Proximate Harm Cause: Criminal act must result in actual harm legally recognized.

  • Multiple Individuals Liability: More than one party can be held liable for a crime.

Parties to a Crime

• Principals: Individuals who are physically present and commit the crime.

• Accessories: Individuals who assist the principals in committing the crime.

Common Law Categories:

• Principals in the First Degree: Those who actually commit the crime.

• Principals in the Second Degree: Individuals present at the crime scene who assist.

• Accessory Before the Fact: Someone who helps plan the crime but isn't present during its commission.

• Accessory After the Fact: Someone who assists the criminal after the crime has been committed.

Modern Categories:

• Accomplices: Individuals who help the principal in committing the crime.

• Accessories: Individuals who assist after the crime has been committed.

• Derivative Liability: Liability derived from participation as an accomplice.

• Pinkerton Rule: All co-conspirators can be held responsible for the criminal acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Actus Reus of Accomplice Liability

• Accomplice Liability: The legal responsibility of a person who assists another in committing a crime.

• No Requirement to Prove Accomplice’s Contribution Essential: It is not necessary to show that the accomplice's actions were critical to the commission of the crime.

Mere Presence Rule:

• Generally, mere presence at the scene does not constitute liability unless there is a duty to intervene.

• Bailey v. United States: Clarifies how presence is not enough for liability.

• Exception: State v. Walden: If an individual has a duty to intervene and fails to, they may be liable.

Mens Rea of Accomplice Liability

• Dual Intents: An accomplice must have two intents:

  • Intent to assist the primary party.

  • Intent that the primary party commit the offense charged.

• People v. Perez: Case illustrating dual intents.

Case Examples:

• United States v. Peoni: Focuses on accomplice culpability.

• State v. Case: Discusses intent linked to knowledge of the criminal plan.

• Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine: Accomplice may be liable for all consequences that naturally follow from the criminal act.

Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine

• State v. Linscott: Illustrates how some states uphold the doctrine.

• Some jurisdictions have rejected it as it allows convictions without proving the state of mind.

• Others have revised their stance on the doctrine.

Accessory After the Fact

The Common Law

• Requirements:

  • Must conceal or assist a known felon.

  • Subjected to the same punishment as the principal.

The Elements of Accessory After the Fact:

1. Commission of a felony: A felony must have already been committed.

2. Knowledge: The accessory must know the felony occurred, exemplified in cases like Wilson v. State and Clark v. United States.

3. Affirmative Act: Must take action to assist or conceal.

4. Criminal Intent: Action must be carried out with the intent to assist.

• State v. Jordan: Highlights intention behind actions.

Modern View:

• Accessory after the fact is now recognized as a separate, less serious felony or misdemeanor.

• Some states have replaced it with new offenses like hindering prosecution and updated statutes.

• Example: Most states no longer provide immunity to spouses.

• Many jurisdictions increasingly align with the Model Penal Code.

Vicarious Liability

• Definition: Legal concept where one party is held liable for actions of another, typically in employer-employee relationships.

• Contextual Examples:

  • Employers can be liable for employee actions.

  • Car owners can be liable for parking violations.

  • Parents can be responsible for their children’s actions.

  • Case: People v. Travers illustrates vicarious liability in various contexts.

Corporate Liability

• Corporate Context: Corporations may face liability for the actions of employees under certain conditions.

  • Relevant Case Law:

    • United States v. Dotterweich: Addresses liability in corporate settings.

    • United States v. Park: Further discusses corporate accountability.

• Natural Persons vs. Corporate Persons: Distinction between individual officers and the corporation itself.

Respondeat Superior Doctrine:

• Legal doctrine holding employers/ principals liable for negligent actions of employees/agents while performing job duties.

• Model Penal Code Section 2.07: Addresses corporate liability.

Public Policy Considerations

• Vicarious liability aims to enforce responsibility for unlawful acts within corporate and familial structures to promote accountability.

• Concerns: Sometimes unfair on organizations when individual employees commit serious crimes.

• Case: Commonwealth v. Penn Valley Resorts, Inc. explores issues of fairness within vicarious liability.

Automobiles, Parents, and Vicarious Liability

Traffic Tickets

• Prima Facie Responsibility: Vehicle owner is presumed responsible for parking tickets unless presenting evidence to the contrary.

Parental Responsibility Laws

• Parents are presumed to have a duty to supervise their children’s actions, especially relevant in claims against minors.

Social Host Liability Laws

• Encompasses responsibilities of adults hosting gatherings where underage drinking occurs.

• Case Examples:

  • Allen v. Bordentown: Explores legal implications of host responsibilities.

  • Williams v. Garcetti: Highlights liabilities associated with hosting minors.