CRM 321 Mod 4 Lecture Notes To understand criminal liability, you must also understand who are the parties to a crime. Only a person who is involved in the crime to some extent is considered a party and is liable for the crime committed. The greater degree of involvement of a party increases their culpability and also increases their potential punishment. Persons who are the most culpable are those actually involved in committing the crime - the person who goes into the bank to rob it; the person who shoots and a kills the victim; the person who breaks into the house and steals the TV - these persons are known as the principle. The principle is a person who directly participates in the commission of crime. Principles also include the person sitting in the car as the getaway driver at the bank robbery; the person who accompanies the shooter in the murder; and the person outside who helps carry away the stolen TV; they are all principles as well, because they actively participated in the commission of the crime. These persons may sometimes be called accomplices and would be charged as a principle and be prosecuted for the crime they assisted with. Persons who help to a lesser extent and do not actively participate in the actual commission of the crime are called accessories. An accessory might be a person who works at the bank and provides information to bank robbers to assist them in the robbery, or maybe it is the person who provided the guns or the getaway car. The persons who assist in the preparation for the crime are called an accessory before the fact. Someone who helps the robbers get rid of the getaway car or guns after the robbery, or a person who help dispose of the body after the murder, would be an accessory after the fact. An accessory is normally charged with a lesser crime than the principle in most jurisdictions. However, accessories and principles may also face charges for conspiracy in most cases as well. We will discuss conspiracy later in the presentation. Under the law, one person may be responsible, or criminally liable, for the criminal acts of another - this is known as vicarious liability. This legal principle is applicable to both criminal law as well as civil law wrongs such as negligence. Liability is imputed from one person to another
based upon a relationship - such as parent-child or employer-employee. It could also apply to the owner of a car who lends the vehicle to another person. It is also applicable to corporations. The law also punishes crimes that are incomplete - these are known as inchoate crimes. The word inchoate simply means to begin. An inchoate crime is an attempted crime, or a crime the defendant took steps towards, but did not quite complete. Conspiracy, solicitation, and attempt are examples of inchoate crimes. The reason the law makes such acts a crime is to punish conduct that is planned to violate the law. It is also to punish criminal conduct that failed to be completed. With inchoate crimes we still look at both the actus reas and mens rea. The mens rea is obviously the intent to commit the crime, and for inchoate crimes, the actus reas is some act that goes beyond mere preparation. An attempt is simply an unsuccessful or incomplete criminal act. The burglar who breaks the lock on the door, but cannot gain entry; the thief who tries to take the car, but cannot get it to start; the criminal who tries to break in, but is scared away by an alarm - all were an earnest attempt at committing a crime, but the crime was not completed. The law punishes attempted crimes under the dangerous act rationale. What was the danger or risk? What was the potential harm? The elements of an attempt are different than a completed crime - but you must have both criminal intent, as with any crime, and some act or acts committed toward committing the crime. The key to an attempt is that intended crime is not completed. An attempt is usually a lesser crime than the one intended. For example, first-degree murder may be a capital offense, however an attempted murder conviction would be lesser felony and certainly would not carry the death penalty. There are defenses to the charge of an attempted crime. One is impossibility - either a legal impossibility, or a factual impossibility. A legal impossibility means that even though you intended to commit a crime, the conduct is simply not illegal. Bob wants take a cooler of beer to City Beach, but he was arrested for doing so last 4 th of July.
So this year, Bob paints all of his beer cans to look like Coca-Cola cans in order to conceal his illegal beverages, and takes them to the beach. However, Bob doesn t know that three months ago, the city council lifted the ban on alcoholic beverages at the beach. Even though Bob had criminal intent to break the law and took steps toward doing so, his conduct is not illegal. Thinking he was able to get away with the perfect crime of beach beer concealment, Bob decides to step up his crime spree. Bob decides that since he hated every John Wayne western movie he ever saw, he will kill John Wayne in order to keep him from ever making another film. Bob goes out and legally buys a gun, bullets, and a shovel to bury the body. Bob then drives to John Wayne s ranch in Arizona and shoots out all the windows of the house (which is now a museum). While Bob has criminal intent again, and has taken steps toward committing the crime of murder, John Wayne died over 30 years ago and it is a factual impossibility that Bob could murder him. While Bob may be facing some serious charges, attempted murder will not be one of them. Another defense is voluntary abandonment. This is a situation where the criminal has the intent to commit the crime, takes steps toward committing the crime, but turns away from the crime before it is completed. Jim decides to rob a bank and obtains a gun and ski mask to use in the crime. He drives to the bank, parks in the parking lot, puts on the ski mask, and tucks the gun in his belt. He gets out of the car to go in, but immediately decides the whole idea is crazy. He rips off his mask, gets back in the car and drives away. Unfortunately, someone in the bank saw Jim, called the police, and he is arrested a few blocks from the bank. Jim attempted to rob the bank, but he voluntarily abandoned the plan before completing the crime. Jim could use this as an affirmative defense at his trial for attempted armed robbery. The crime of conspiracy punishes the planning and steps taken toward committing a crime, regardless of whether the intended crime is ever committed. Conspiracy requires that two or more persons, having the intent to commit a crime, agree to commit a crime, and commit some overt act toward committing the intended crime. We will look at each of these elements
individually. To prove the intent element in a conspiracy, the defendant must know of the conspiracy or possibly have some knowledge about it. Mere knowledge, sympathy, or approval alone is not enough - there must be some participation or a stake in the outcome. How much knowledge is required? Not too much! For example, a co-conspirator does not need to know all the details of the plan or even the identity of all the other co-conspirators. To prove intent, the government must show that the defendant, through word or deed, intended to be a player in the intended crime. As noted before, there must be an agreement or a meeting of the minds between the conspirators. Said another way, there must be a common understanding to jointly accomplish the goal of the conspiracy. So how is the agreement proved? Common means of proof include a confession or admission by a co-conspirator, or through flipping a co-conspirator agrees to work as an informant for the police. Most commonly, we can infer the agreement from the circumstances. Bob and Bill get out of the same car, walk into a bank together, both wearing ski masks, both armed, and proceed to rob the bank. We can infer from these facts that Bob and Bill had previously agreed to commit this crime together, and the very least, coming to bank was an overt act toward the robbery. It is improbable that this crime had not been planned before coming to the bank. The facts provide sufficient evident of the agreement element for the conspiracy, in addition to the other crimes committed. Also, it is important to understand that each such agreement results in a conspiracy. The goal or objective of the conspiracy is the intended crime. Unlike an attempt, impossibility is not a defense to criminal conspiracy. These objectives can be legal or illegal, and the means by which the objective can be met can be legal or illegal. For example, a legal objective by illegal means could be the goal of winning a lawsuit by bribing a juror. An illegal objective by legal means could be the goal of laundering drug money by opening a legitimate business with the money. And an example of an illegal objective by illegal means could be the goal of defrauding
an insurance company by faking a death to collect the life insurance money. All the planning and criminal intent falls short of being a criminal act until some overt act is taken toward meeting the goal of the conspiracy. As we have learned before, criminal intent, without action, is not a crime and there is no criminal liability. The overt act provides that action and locks in, or completes, the crime of conspiracy. An overt act in a conspiracy is any act that will help to carry out or assist in accomplishing the agreement/objective of the conspiracy. To lock-in the conspiracy, the overt act must occur after the agreement has taken place. The nature of the overt act may be may be criminal or non-criminal. For example, stealing a gun to use in the planned armed robbery is an overt act that locks in the conspiracy; however, legally purchasing a gun to use in the robbery is an overt act as well. Finally, it is important to understand only a single overt act is required to complete the offense of conspiracy. What criminal liability is carried by co-conspirators? Co-conspirators are liable for all the criminal acts committed by co-conspirators during the course of the conspiracy which are reasonably foreseeable. For example Jack, Jill, and Johnny agree to rob a bank. Jack buys ski masks for use during the deed (locking in the conspiracy). If an armed bank robbery is the intended goal, what crimes are foreseeable and what crimes are not foreseeable? If a guard, employee, or customer gets shot - that is foreseeable and all co-conspirators would be criminally liable. If Jack steals some customers wallets, watches, etc. - those crimes are foreseeable and all would be criminally liable. If Jill takes a customer hostage to aid their getaway, most likely that is also foreseeable at an armed robbery. But what if Johnny decides to rape a teller during the robbery - probably not foreseeable and Jill and Jack would not be criminally liable for the rape. The courts are pretty generous regarding what crimes are foreseeable. In a conspiracy to rob a bank, there are a lot of additional criminal acts which are foreseeable. Once all of the elements of a conspiracy are met, the conspiracy continues to exist until the intended goals are either consummated (objective accomplished/crime committed);
abandoned (all members walk away and give up); or the conspiracy is terminated (such as the withdrawal of one member in a two-person conspiracy). It is important to remember that someone being arrested is not considered a withdrawal from the conspiracy because leaving the conspiracy was not voluntary. The crime of solicitation is asking someone else to commit a crime for you - but not with you, which would be a conspiracy. Solicitation may include a murder for hire or soliciting a prostitute.