DOCSLIB.ORG

Bond University Research Repository Challenging Conceptions Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bond University Research Repository Challenging Conceptions Of Bond University Research Repository Challenging Conceptions of Accessory Liability in Private Law Ridge, Pauline; Dietrich, Joachim Published in: Cambridge Law Journal DOI: 10.1017/S0008197319000345 Published: 01/07/2019 Document Version: Peer reviewed version Link to publication in Bond University research repository. Recommended citation(APA): Ridge, P., & Dietrich, J. (2019). Challenging Conceptions of Accessory Liability in Private Law. Cambridge Law Journal, 78(2), 383-408. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197319000345 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. For more information, or if you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact the Bond University research repository coordinator. Download date: 09 Oct 2020 CHALLENGING CONCEPTIONS OF ACCESSORY LIABILITY IN PRIVATE LAW PAULINE RIDGE* AND JOACHIM DIETRICH** This article concerns recent challenges to the utility of ‘accessory liability’ as an organising principle or concept in private law and argues that accessory liability is a coherent body of law with common features that is worthy of separate, holistic treatment. We defend a conceptual framework for accessory liability which is dynamic in its operation and which does not dictate the precise legal content of accessory liability in different contexts. Such a conception of accessory liability has come under challenge from recent cases and commentary which either minimise the scope and analytical relevance of accessory liability altogether in equity and tort law or propound a conceptual framework for accessory liability that is fixed in its application and uniform in its content across the whole of private law. Our purpose in this article is to resist both the dismissal of, and simplification of, accessory liability in private law. I. INTRODUCTION It is rare for the law to impose liability on one person for wrongful conduct engaged in by another. Accessory liability is one instance in which this occurs. In broad terms, accessory liability arises where a party involves herself in another’s wrongdoing — the primary wrong — with a sufficient mental state such as to be legally at fault. That fault justifies the accessory (A) being held liable to the claimant (C) to remedy the consequences of the primary wrong. In previous work we argued that accessory liability in private law is a coherent body of law with common features that is worthy of separate, holistic treatment.1 We proposed a conceptual framework that is dynamic in its operation and that does not dictate the precise legal content of accessory liability in different contexts. This conception of accessory liability does not depend upon whether the accessory is liable for the same wrong as the primary wrongdoer (that is, they are joint wrongdoers) or is held liable for a different wrong (that is, accessory liability constituting a distinct wrong). Hence, it reaches into most areas of private law. Since then, however, several very different views about the role of accessorial concepts in the law have either emerged or crystallised. On the one hand, some commentators minimise the scope and analytical relevance of accessory liability to equity and tort law. These views are evident in recent scholarly treatments and are given some support in a recent Australian case at the highest level. Such approaches challenge the utility of analysing or indeed, describing, liability as accessorial. On the other hand, a recent monograph accepts the importance of * Australian National University. ** Bond University. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their generous and constructive reviews. 1 See generally J. Dietrich and P. Ridge, Accessories in Private Law (Cambridge 2015). 1 accessory liability, but propounds a conceptual framework for the liability that is fixed in its application and uniform in its content. Our purpose in this article is to resist both the dismissal, and simplification, of accessory liability in private law that is evident in these recent developments. Hence, the article concerns the utility of ‘accessory liability’ as an organising principle or concept in private law. Does accessory liability, as we will explain it, still make better sense of certain liabilities across private law than other explanations of those liabilities, including other conceptions of accessory liability itself? The topic is important. Legal theorising of the type discussed in this article is not completely abstracted from the law in practice. The shared objective of each of the conceptions of law critiqued below is to explain the law from an internal legal perspective in a way that will assist courts and legislators to develop that law in a coherent fashion. Whichever conception, if any, finds favour with the courts will have practical ramifications for the conduct, and outcome, of litigation. This is because the requisite elements of liability, the judicial method for determining whether such elements are satisfied, as well as the boundaries of liability in different areas of law, are all affected by one’s conception of the liability itself. After briefly outlining our preferred conception of accessory liability (Part II) and the terminological confusion regarding accessory and related liabilities (Part III), the article continues in Part III to discuss two conceptual challenges to accessory liability that would dramatically reduce its scope and relevance in equity and in the law of torts respectively. These approaches dismiss the relevance of accessory liability altogether. Part IV evaluates an alternative conception of accessory liability itself and argues that it promotes a degree of uniformity and simplicity that is at odds with, and to the detriment of, the existing law. The jurisdictional focus is on English and Australian private law: although the laws in these two jurisdictions have a common heritage, they have also diverged in significant ways, particularly in the context of equitable accessory principles, such as to provide a useful comparison.2 II. THE PREFERRED CONCEPTION OF ACCESSORY LIABILITY 2 Although it will be necessary in Part III C to consider briefly the criminal law of complicity, the fundamental differences between civil and criminal law, as well as the complexity and confusion surrounding criminal accessory and related liabilities, make anything other than peripheral consideration of the criminal law unwise and unhelpful. 2 Across private law, one circumstance in which liability will be imposed on a person for the wrongful conduct of another is where three elements are present: (i) A primary wrong3 committed by a person (the primary wrongdoer, PW); (ii) Involvement, through conduct, by someone other than PW (the accessory, A), in the primary wrong; and, (iii) A has a requisite mental state relating to the primary wrong at the time of the conduct. At its simplest, it can be said that accessory liability arises where a party involves herself in another’s wrongdoing with a sufficient mental state such as to be legally at fault and, thus, responsible. It is necessary, however, to add three details to this bare conceptual framework in order to accurately represent the scope and operation of accessory liability across private law. They concern the legal content of each element, the dynamic operation of the framework and the form of liability. First, the doctrinal or legislative content of the conduct (ii) and mental (iii) elements of the framework — and hence, fault — is determined by reference to the purposes and values of the law governing the primary wrong, element (i). Importantly, this means that the precise content of elements (ii) and (iii) may and does vary. Accordingly, the framework does not dictate that the legal rules for accessory liability be identical across private law. In other words, the framework does not constitute a generic cause of action, but rather an organising principle of liability. For example, the equitable wrong of dishonest (or knowing) assistance has less onerous conduct and knowledge requirements than the tort of inducing breach of contract. Nonetheless, both embody the same conceptual framework for liability.4 Secondly, the three elements of the framework relate in dynamic fashion. In particular, there is a relationship between the weightings accorded to elements (ii) and (iii) which in combination establish liability. In some areas of law and jurisdictions the dynamic operation of the framework manifests at the level of the judicial inquiry into liability. An example is the requirement for equitable accessory liability in English law that A be ‘dishonestly’ involved in 3 We use the term ‘wrong’ in a broad, but conventional sense, to mean breach of a legal duty that leads to remedial outcomes and as including breaches of common law and equitable duties. Breaches of statutory duty that give rise to private action also come within the ambit of ‘wrong’. 4 Cf., Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 2 A.C. 378, 392 and OBG Ltd v Allan [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 A.C. 1, at [39]-[44]. 3 any breach of trust or fiduciary duty.5 This requires a normative judgement to be made as to A’s conduct in all the circumstances, including A’s mental state.6 In other jurisdictions this dynamic feature is embedded in the doctrinal formulation. For example, the equivalent Australian
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parties to Crime and Vicarious Liability
    CHAPTER 6: PARTIES TO CRIME AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY The text discusses parties to crime in terms of accessories and accomplices. Accessories are defined as accessory before the fact – those who help prepare for the crime – and accessories after the fact – those who assist offenders after the crime. Accomplices are defined as those who participate in the crime. Under the common law, accessories were typically not punished as much as accomplices or principle offenders; on the other hand, accomplices were usually punished the same as principal offenders. Accomplices and Accessories Before the Fact Under Ohio’s statutes, accomplices and accessories before the fact are now treated similarly, while accessories after the fact are treated separately under the obstruction of justice statute discussed later. Under Ohio’s complicity staute: (A) No person acting with the kind of culpability required for an offense…shall do any of the following: Solicit or procure another to commit the offense; Aid or abet another in committing the offense; Conspire with another to commit the offense… ; Cause an innocent or irresponsible person to commit the offense. (Ohio Revised Code, § 2923.03, 1986, available at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.03). Note that parts of the complicity statute – (A)(1) and (A)(3) – mention both solicitation and conspiracy. These two crimes are discussed in Chapter 7. The punishment for complicity is the same as for the principal offender; that is, if Offender A robs a liquor store and Offender B drives the getaway car, both offenders are subject to the same punishment, even though Offender A would be charged with robbery and Offender B would be charged with complicity (Ohio Revised Code, § 2923.03 (F), 1986, available at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.03).
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal
    Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal Release 20, September 2019 NOTICE TO USERS: THE FOLLOWING SET OF UNANNOTATED MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER, MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FULL ANNOTATED VERSION OF THESE MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE FROM MATTHEW BENDER® BY WAY OF THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/area-of-practice/criminal-law-procedure- 161/virginia-model-jury-instructions-criminal-skuusSku6572 Matthew Bender is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Instruction No. 2.050 Preliminary Instructions to Jury Members of the jury, the order of the trial of this case will be in four stages: 1. Opening statements 2. Presentation of the evidence 3. Instructions of law 4. Final argument After the conclusion of final argument, I will instruct you concerning your deliberations. You will then go to your room, select a foreperson, deliberate, and arrive at your verdict. Opening Statements First, the Commonwealth's attorney may make an opening statement outlining his or her case. Then the defendant's attorney also may make an opening statement. Neither side is required to do so. Presentation of the Evidence [Second, following the opening statements, the Commonwealth will introduce evidence, after which the defendant then has the right to introduce evidence (but is not required to do so). Rebuttal evidence may then be introduced if appropriate.] [Second, following the opening statements, the evidence will be presented.] Instructions of Law Third, at the conclusion of all evidence, I will instruct you on the law which is to be applied to this case.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification of a Sample of Felony Offenses
    NORTH CAROLINA SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION CLASSIFICATION OF A SAMPLE OF OFFENSES (Effective 12/1/17) CLASS A FELONIES Maximum Punishment of Death or Life Without Parole First-Degree Murder. (14-17) CLASS B1 FELONIES Maximum Punishment of Life Without Parole First-Degree Forcible Sexual Offense. (14-27.26)/First-Degree Second-Degree Murder. (14-17(b)) Statutory Sexual Offense. (14-27.29) First-Degree Forcible Rape. (14-27.21)/First-Degree Statutory Rape (14-27.24) CLASS B2 FELONIES Maximum Punishment of 484* Months Second-Degree Murder. (14-17(b)(1) and (2)) CLASS C FELONIES Maximum Punishment of 231* Months Second-Degree Forcible Rape. (14-27.22) First-Degree Kidnapping. (14-39) Second-Degree Forcible Sexual Offense. (14-27.27) Embezzlement (amount involved $100,000 or more). (14-90) Assault W/D/W/I/K/I/S/I. (14-32(a)) CLASS D FELONIES Maximum Punishment of 204* Months Voluntary Manslaughter. (14-18) Child Abuse Inflicting Serious Physical Injury. (14-318.4(a)) First-Degree Burglary. (14-51) Death by Vehicle. (20-141.4(a)(1)) First-Degree Arson. (14-58) Sell or Deliver a Controlled Substance to a Person Under 16 But Armed Robbery. (14-87) More than 13 Years of Age. (90-95(e)(5)) CLASS E FELONIES Maximum Punishment of 88* Months Sexual Activity by a Substitute Parent or Custodian. (14-27.31) Assault with a Firearm on a Law Enforcement Officer. (14-34.5) Assault W/D/W/I/S/I. (14-32(b)) Second-Degree Kidnapping. (14-39) Assault W/D/W/I/K.
    [Show full text]
  • FELON's RESPONSIBILITY for the LETHAL ACTS of OTHERS Norval Morris T
    [Vol. 105 THE FELON'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LETHAL ACTS OF OTHERS Norval Morris t Far from shrinking under protracted criticism, the felony-murder rule has recently demonstrated a tendency to expand. In particular, courts in Pennsylvania and California have greatly extended the scope of this doctrine. Though their purpose of deterring the commission of certain felonies is commendable, the means selected appears to be socially unwise and is based on reasoning not free from substantial analytic and historical errors. Throughout the Anglo-American system of criminal justice, those who engage in certain felonies and kill the subject of their felonious designs, or those who kill while forcibly resisting lawful arrest, may be convicted of murder. Where, however, death is caused by the retaliatory or defensive action of a victim of an intended felony, or by a police officer or other person assisting him, the criminal responsibility of the felon for that death is less clear. In such circumstances an innocent bystander, a policeman or one of the felons may be killed by an act of justified resistance to the felony or by an act intended to prevent the criminal's escape. Are the felons, by virtue of their felony, murderers? Likewise, if during the course of a felony one of the felons from extraneous motives kills one of his fellow conspirators, the criminal liability of the surviving conspirators, other than the actual killer, is uncertain. Decisions in Pennsylvania and California have held the surviving felons guilty of murder in the first degree in all the above situations. It is proposed to review these cases, to search out the suggested basis of liability, and to urge the repudiation of this extension of the felony- murder rule.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilson-Bey & Marbury V. US, on Rehearing En Banc
    Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 01-CF-293 and 01-CF-633 LAKEISHA WILSON-BEY, APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES, APPELLEE., and SCKEENA MARBURY, APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES, APPELLEE. Appeals from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (F-504-00 and F-505-00) (Hon. Russell F. Canan, Trial Judge) (Argued En Banc March 20, 2006 Decided July 20, 2006) John O. Iweanoge, Jr., for appellant Lakeisha Wilson-Bey. Matthew M. Hoffman, with whom John Moustakas and Stephen R. Galoob were on the brief, for appellant Sckeena Marbury. David B. Goodhand, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Kenneth L. Wainstein, United States Attorney, and Roy W. McLeese III and Lynn C. Holliday, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief, for appellee. Andrea Roth, with whom James Klein and Samia Fam were on the brief, for Public Defender Service, amicus curiae. Before WASHINGTON, Chief Judge, FARRELL, RUIZ, REID, GLICKMAN, and KRAMER, Associate Judges, and WAGNER and SCHWELB,* Senior Judges. SCHWELB, Senior Judge: Following a jury trial, Lakeisha Wilson-Bey and * Judge Schwelb was an Associate Judge of the court at the time of argument. His status changed to Senior Judge on June 24, 2006. 2 Sckeena Marbury, who are sisters, were both convicted of first-degree premeditated murder while armed, in violation of D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Vicarious Criminal Liability and the Constitutional Dimensions of Pinkerton Alex Kreit [email protected]
    American University Law Review Volume 57 | Issue 3 Article 2 2008 Vicarious Criminal Liability and the Constitutional Dimensions of Pinkerton Alex Kreit [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Kreit, Alex. “Vicarious Criminal Liability and the Constitutional Dimensions of Pinkerton.” American University Law Review 57, no.3 (February, 2008): 585-639. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Vicarious Criminal Liability and the Constitutional Dimensions of Pinkerton Abstract This article considers what limits the constitution places on holding someone criminally liable for another's conduct. While vicarious criminal liability is often criticized, there is no doubt that it is constitutionally permissible as a general matter. Under the long-standing felony murder doctrine, for example, if A and B rob a bank and B shoots and kills a security guard, A can be held criminally liable for the murder. What if, however, A was not involved in the robbery but instead had a completely separate conspiracy with B to distribute cocaine? What relationship, if any, does the constitution require between A's conduct and B's crimes in order to hold A liable for them? It is clear A could not be punished for B's crimes simply because they are friends.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mental State Requirement for Accomplice Liability in American Criminal Law
    South Carolina Law Review Volume 60 Issue 2 Article 1 2008 The Mental State Requirement for Accomplice Liability in American Criminal Law John F. Decker DePaul University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John F. Decker, The Mental State Requirement for Accomplice Liability in American Criminal Law, 60 S. C. L. Rev. 239 (2008). This Article is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Decker: The Mental State Requirement for Accomplice Liability in American THE MENTAL STATE REQUIREMENT FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY IN AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW JOHN F. DECKER* 1. INTROD U CTION .......................................................................................... 239 II. A FACIAL REVIEW OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE ................................. 244 A. Category I Statutes: "Specific Intent". .............................................. 245 B. Category II Statutes: "Statutorily PrescribedMental State" ........ 247 C. Category III Statutes: "Naturaland Probable Consequences........ 249 D. Statutes Requiring "Knowledge" Rather than "Intent" ................... 250 E. Statutes Lacking Any Mental State Requirement ............................... 251 F. Statutes Allowing for a Defense for the Victim of a Crime ................ 253 G. Statutes with Incidental Party Provisions.........................................
    [Show full text]
  • 674KB***Accessory Liability in Tort and Equity
    (2015) 27 SAcLJ Accessory Liability in Tort and Equity 853 ACCESSORY LIABILITY IN TORT AND EQUITY Unlike the position in criminal law, there does not currently exist a general doctrine of accessory liability in civil law. Thus, a person may be liable as an accessory in equity for dishonestly assisting with a breach of trust, but there is no tort for dishonest assistance. Rather, one who participates in another’s tort will only be liable if he is a joint tortfeasor acting pursuant to a common design with the primary tortfeasor. This article examines the reasons for this divergence and evaluates the case for their assimilation. It observes that, contrary to common perception, the scope of participatory liability in both spheres does not materially differ. It also concludes that the case for assimilation is not made out if the overarching principle for civil accessory liability is defined principally by reference to criminal concepts of complicity. Such an approach overlooks the fundamental distinctions between civil and criminal processes and threatens to extend civil liability beyond acceptable bounds. LEE Pey Woan* LLB (Hons) (London), BCL (Oxford); Barrister (Middle Temple), Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore); Associate Professor, School of Law, Singapore Management University. 1 In civil as well as criminal law, a person may be liable when he participates in the wrong of another. Such liability is variously described as “accessory”, “secondary” or “derivative” because it is contingent upon a wrong being committed by the primary wrongdoer. In criminal law, a general doctrine of accessory or secondary liability exists which applies uniformly to all crimes.
    [Show full text]
  • National Incident-Based Reporting System Volume 1: Data Collection Guidelines
    U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Justice Information Services Division Uniform Crime Reporting National Incident-Based Reporting System Volume 1: Data Collection Guidelines August 2000 NATIONAL INCIDENT-BASED REPORTING SYSTEM VOLUME 1: DATA COLLECTION GUIDELINES Prepared by U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Justice Information Services Division Uniform Crime Reporting Program August 2000 FOREWORD Information about the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) is contained in the four documents described below: Volume 1: Data Collection Guidelines This document is for the use of local, state, and federal Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program personnel (i.e., administrators, training instructors, report analysts, coders, data entry clerks, etc.) who are responsible for collecting and recording NIBRS crime data for submission to the FBI. It contains a system overview and descriptions of the offenses, offense codes, reports, data elements, and data values used in the system. Volume 2: Data Submission Specifications This document is for the use of local, state, and federal systems personnel (i.e., computer programmers, analysts, etc.) who are responsible for preparing magnetic media for submission to the FBI. It contains the data submission instructions for magnetic media, record layouts, and error-handling procedures that must be followed in submitting magnetic media to the FBI for NIBRS reporting purposes. Volume 3: Approaches to Implementing an Incident-Based Reporting (IBR) System This document is for the use of local, state, and federal systems personnel (i.e., computer programmers, analysts, etc.) who are responsible for developing an IBR system that will meet NIBRS’s reporting requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law Outline Rachel Barkow Spring 2014
    CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE RACHEL BARKOW SPRING 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction A. The Criminal Justice System in the US B. The Role of the Prosecutor C. The Role of the Jury D. What to Punish? E. The Justification of Punishment II. Building Blocks of Criminal Law A. Legality B. Culpability and Elements of the Offense 1. Actus Reus/Omissions 2. Mens Rea a) Basic Conceptions and Applications b) Mistake of Fact c) Strict Liability d) Mistake of Law and the Cultural Defense III. Substantive Offenses A. Homicide and the Grading of Offenses 1. Premeditation/Deliberation 2. Provocation 3. Unintentional Killing 4. Felony Murder 5. Causation B. Rape 1. Introduction 2. Actus Reus 3. Mens Rea C. Blackmail IV. Attempts A. Mens Rea B. Actus Reus/Preparation V. Group Criminality A. Accountability for the Acts of Others 1. Mens Rea 2. Natural and Probable Consequences Theory 3. Actus Reus B. Conspiracy 1. Actus Reus and Mens Rea 2. Conspiracy as Accessory Liability 3. Duration and Scope of a Conspiracy 4. Reassessing the Law of Conspiracy 1 C. Corporate Criminal Liability VI. General Defenses to Liability A. Overview B. Justifications 1. Self Defense 2. Defense of Property 3. Necessity C. Excuses 1. Insanity 2. Expansion of Excuses 3. Duress VII. The Imposition of Criminal Punishment A. Sentencing B. Proportionality 2 INTRODUCTION Criminal Justice System in the U.S. I. Mass Incarceration and its Causes and Consequences A. Mass incarceration • Massive in terms of total numbers • Massive in terms of disproportionate impact on people of color B. Causes
    [Show full text]
  • The Mens Rea of Accomplice Liability: Supporting Intentions
    SHERIF GIRGIS The Mens Rea of Accomplice Liability: Supporting Intentions ABSTRACT. Accomplice liability makes someone guilty of a crime he never committed, so long as he helped or influenced the perpetrator and did so with the required mens rea. Just what that mens rea should be has been contested for more than a century. Here I consider three major approaches and find them all wanting. I propose rejecting their common (but rarely questioned) assumption that what matters is the helper's mental state toward the perpetrator's commission of an offense. I suggest considering instead his stance toward the perpetrator's intention to act: a helper is an accomplice, on this view, if he (a) intends to see to it that the principal form or keep his own plan to commit an offense and (b) does not intend or expect that plan's frustration. This standard better justifies imposing accomplice liability. It more precisely picks out those helpers culpable for the perpetrator's very offense. And this parity of guilt is the best-perhaps the only good-basis for imposing the same liability on accomplice and principal, in a system so retribution-driven as to choose to do so at all. AUTHO R. Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2016; Princeton University, Ph.D. expected 2016; University of Oxford, B.Phil. 2010; Princeton University, A.B. 2008. This Note was born of a stimulating seminar with Facundo Alonso; matured with exceptional help from Gideon Yaffe, John James Snidow, John Lewis, and Ben Eidelson; and owes its weaknesses to the author.
    [Show full text]
  • Accessorial Liability1 Our Law Recognizes That Two Or More
    Accessorial Liability1 Our law recognizes that two or more individuals can act jointly to commit a crime, and that in certain circumstances, each can be held criminally liable for the acts of the other(s). In that situation, those persons can be said to be "acting in concert" with each other.2 Our law defines the circumstances under which one person may be criminally liable for the conduct of another. That definition is as follows: When one person engages in conduct which constitutes an offense, another is criminally liable for such conduct when, acting with the state of mind required for the commission of that offense, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids such person to engage in such conduct.3 [NOTE: Add as appropriate 4: Under that definition, mere presence at the scene of a crime, even with knowledge that the crime is taking place, (or mere association with a perpetrator of a crime,) does not by itself make a defendant criminally liable for that crime.] In order for the defendant to be held criminally liable for the conduct of another/others which constitutes an offense, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That he/she solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided that person [or persons] to engage in that conduct, and (2) That he/she did so with the state of mind required for the commission of the offense. If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is criminally liable for the conduct of another, the extent or degree of the defendant's participation in the crime does not matter.
    [Show full text]