Chapter Seven - CJ321 PDF

Preview

Summary

CJ321...

Description

Chapter Seven: Parties to Crime Parties to Crime ● Liable for someone else’s conduct ○ Complicity: because of your conduct ○ Accomplies, accessories ● Vicarious liability: because of a relationship ○ Business, Parent-child ● Theories ○ Agency ○ Forfeit personal identity ● Common Law ○ Principal First Degree ○ Principal Second Degree ■ Get Away Drivers, Look out ○ Accessory before the fact ■ Giving the murder weapon ○ Accessory after the fact ■ Harboring the victims ● Modern ○ Accomplice ○ Accessory Accomplice Liability ● Accomplice: Prosecuted for the crime itself ○ Help before and during the crime ● Accessory: Prosecuted for seperate, minor crime ○ Help after the crime ● Accomplice does not mean conspiracy ● Conspiracy: Agreement to commit another crime

State v. Ulvinen ●

Helen Ulvinen was convicted of first-degree murder pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.05, subd. 1 (1980), which imposes criminal liability on one who “intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures” another to commit a crime. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed.

State v. Chism ●

Brian Chism (the defendant) was convicted before the First Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish, of being an accessory after the fact, and was sentenced to three years in Parish Prison, with two and one-half years suspended, and the defendant appealed. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded the case for resentencing.

State v. Zeta Chi Fraternity ●

Zeta Chi (Defendant), a college fraternity, was convicted, following trial in the Superior Court, Strafford County, of selling alcohol to a person under the age of 21, and of prostitution. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.

State v. Akers ●

Parent defendants were found guilty of violating a snowmobile statute which makes parents vicari-ously liable for the acts of their children simply because they occupy the status of parents. The parents waive all rights to an appeal de novo (“new trial”) to superior court. The parents objected to the constitutionality of the parental responsibility statute. The New Hampshire Supreme Court sustained the objections....