Flashcards in Chapter 6 Powerpoint pt. 1 Deck (33):
What are the four categories of parties to a crime, under the common law?
(1) principles in the first degree
(2) principles in the second degree
(3) accessory before the fact
(4) accessory after the fact
True or False: Most jurisdictions still use the common law approach to parties of crime
False; Most jurisdictions no longer use the common law approach to parties of crime
What are the two parties to a crime (besides principles)?
What is the difference between accomplices and accessories?
Accomplices-Individuals participating before and during a crime.
Accessories-Individuals involved following a crime.
___________- Individuals participating before and during a crime.
__________- Individuals involved following a crime.
Is this accomplices or accessories: are usually charged with the offense at hand
Is this accomplices or accessories: are usually charged with a separate, lesser offense.
Statutes and judicial decisions describe the actus reus of accomplice liability using a range of seemingly confusing terms such as ____, _____, _________, and ________.
Statutes and judicial decisions describe the ______ ____ of accomplice liability using a range of seemingly confusing terms such as aid, abet, encourage, and command.
Typically, the act of an _________ can be very minor.
Typically, the act of an accomplice can be very ______.
What is the mere presence rule?
Simply being present and watching a criminal act does not satisfy the needed act for liability.
There is a lack of agreement over the required ____ ____ for accomplice liability.
To prove "dual intent" a defendant must possess intent to?
(1) to assist the primary criminal party
(2) that the primary party commit the offense charged
a person encouraging or facilitating the commission of a crime will be held liable as an accomplice for the crime aided, as well as for crimes that are the natural and probable outcome of the criminal conduct
The natural and probable consequences doctrine
What are the building blocks of criminal conduct?
(1) Constitutional limitations
(2) Actus reus
(3) Mens rea
(4) Concurrence between act and intent
True or False: Only individuals who assist during the commission of a crime are typically held liable
False; Individuals who assist before, during, or after the commission of a crime are typically held liable
Which category of parties to a crime, under the common law is this: main perpetrator of the crime?
Principals in the First Degree
Which category of parties to a crime, under the common law is this: individuals assisting the main perpetrator who are either physically or constructively present
Principals in the Second Degree
Which category of parties to a crime, under the common law is this: individuals who help prepare for the crime who are neither physically nor constructively present?
Accessory Before the Fact
Which category of parties to a crime, under the common law is this: individuals who assist the perpetrators knowing a crime has been committed?
Accessory After the Fact
Individuals may be held liable based on their relationship with the perpetrator of a crime, this is known as?
A conspiracy to commit a crime and the crime itself are separate and distinct crimes, is known as?
Accessories are considered a separate __________.
__________ are considered a separate misdemeanor.
An exception to the mere presence rule arises where the defendants possess a duty to _________.
An exception to the _____ ________ _____ arises where the defendants possess a duty to intervene.
mere presence rule
What happened in the State v. Ulvinen case?
ACCOMPLICE ACTUS REUS.
Participation in son's murder of his wife.
Accused of first-degree murder but reversed, because failing to notify someone of impending death does not make such an omission a criminal offense.
Some judges have ruled that the mens rea requirement for accomplice liability in the case of serious crimes is satisfied by?
the knowledge of a defendant’s criminal plans.
What happened in the Backun v. United States case?
-Defendant appealed decision of the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina convicting and sentencing him for transporting stolen merchandise of a value in excess of $ 5,000 in interstate commerce in violation of the National Stolen Property Act.
-Defendants conviction was reversed because although sufficient evidence proved that defendant knew that the stolen property he sold was going to be transported in interstate commerce, the evidence did not sufficiently prove that the value of the property was in excess of $ 5,000, thus the conviction was not proper.
"A person encouraging or facilitating the commission of a crime will be held liable as an accomplice for the crime he or she aided and abetted as well as for crimes that are a natural and probable outcome of the criminal conduct", is known as?
Natural and probable consequences doctrine