Slide 1

Criminal Law Chapter 7 Parties to Crime and Vicarious Liability Joel Samaha, 9th Ed.

Slide 2

Vicarious Liability When the relationship between two parties makes one party criminally liable for another partys conduct, e.g., employer-employee, buyer-seller, corporation-manager, producer-consumer. Parties to a crime:* 1) Accomplices: participants before and during the commission of crimes. 2) Accessories: participants after crimes are committed. * At common law, principals in the first degree and principals in the second degree were also included.

Slide 3

Accomplices and Accessories All persons before and during the commission of a crime (accomplices) are prosecuted for the crime itself. All persons before and during the commission of a crime (accomplices) are prosecuted for the crime itself. Participation after crimes are committed (accessory liability) is prosecuted as a separate, minor offense - a misdemeanor. For example, an accessory is a person who either harbors or conceals or aids a principal to avoid or escape arrest, trial conviction, or punishment. Participation after crimes are committed (accessory liability) is prosecuted as a separate, minor offense - a misdemeanor. For example, an accessory is a person who either harbors or conceals or aids a principal to avoid or escape arrest, trial conviction, or punishment. What is the difference between an accomplice and a What is the difference between an accomplice and aco-conspirator?

Slide 4

Accomplice Actus Reus The actor took some positive act in aid of the commission of the offense, e.g., providing guns, supplies, or other instruments of crime; serving as a lookout; driving a getaway car; preventing warnings from getting to the victim.* * Words which also may define accomplice actus reus: aid, abet, assist, counsel, procure, hire, or induce.

Slide 5

Question Explain the mere presence rule. What is the exception to the mere presence rule? In State v. Ulvinen (Minn. 1981), do you agree with the court that however morally reprehensible her behavior, she nonetheless was not an accomplice? Defend your answer.

Slide 6

Accomplice Mens Rea It is the knowledge of the wrongful purpose of the actor plus the encouragement provided by the aider and abettor that makes the later guilty. Although the guilt of the aider and abettor is dependent upon the actors crime, the criminal intent of the aider and abettor is presumed from his actions with knowledge of the actors wrongful purpose. (People v. Poplar, 1970)* What are the facts of the case in People v. Poplar? What are the facts of the case in People v. Poplar? * Jurisdictions vary and sometimes are confused as to whether knowledge, recklessness, or negligence qualify.

Slide 7

Accessories After the Fact Accessory is a separate lesser offense than accomplice liability. Accessory is a separate lesser offense than accomplice liability. Elements of accessory after the fact include: Elements of accessory after the fact include: a. The accessory personally helped the person who committed the felony (actus reus element). b. The accessory knew a felony was committed (mens rea element). c. The accessory helped for the purpose of hindering prosecution (mens rea element). d. Someone other than the accessory actually committed a felony (circumstantial element). What are the facts and opinion in State v. Chism (436 So.2d 464 (La. 1983)). What are the facts and opinion in State v. Chism (436 So.2d 464 (La. 1983)).

Slide 8

Questions Why is it difficult to pinpoint vicarious liability for business crimes? What is the difference between strict liability and vicarious liability?* What are the fact and opinion in State v. Zeta Chi Fraternity? (686 A.2d 530 (N.H. 1997)) * Most vicarious liability statutes involve employer-employee relationship (enterprise or corporate vicarious liability).

Slide 9

Individual Vicarious Liability Vicarious liability is strictly created by statute there is no common law vicarious liability. What were the facts and opinion in State v. Torino (1999) and State v. Ackers (1979)

Slide 10

Discussion Is it fundamentally fair to base liability on relationship and not acts and/or intent in enterprise/corporate vicarious liability cases? Explain. Does holding parents responsible based solely on the parent-child relationship violate due process?