Chapter 6
Parties to Crime and
Vicarious Liability
Introduction
There are two types of situations in which
multiple parties are held liable for a crime:
Parties to a crime (complicity)
Vicarious liability
Parties to a Crime (Complicity)
The common law divided participants in a crime
into:
Principles (actually present; carried out crime)
Accessories (assisted principles)
Common Law Parties (cont.)
Principles in the first degree
Principles in the second degree
Accessories before the fact
Accessories after the fact
Contemporary Parties to a Crime
Today, most states typically distinguish
between two types of parties to a crime:
Accomplices (involved before & during crime)
Accessories (involved in assisting an offender
after he/she commits a crime)
Parties to a Crime (cont.)
Derivative liability—the accessory’s guilt
flows from the acts of the primary perpetrator
of the crime
Pinkerton rule—provides that a conspiracy to
commit a crime & the crime itself are separate
& distinct crimes
Accomplice Liability: Actus Reus
 Described variously as: aiding, abetting,
encouraging, commanding, etc.
 The actus reus element of accomplice liability is
satisfied by even a relatively insignificant degree
of material or psychological assistance.
 The Mere Presence Rule—provides that being
present & watching the commission of a crime is
not sufficient to satisfy the actus reus element
Accomplice Liability:
Actus Reus (cont.)
Exception to the Mere Presence Rule:
Being present during the commission of a crime
can satisfy the actus reus element of accomplice
liability when individuals possess a duty to
intervene.
State v. Ulvinen (1981)
6.1. You Decide: Cordeiro
Were all 15 male customers & the male
bartender accomplices to the sexual attack
on the victim? Why or why not?
How would you handle the case if you were
the prosecutor? What charges might you
bring against the various individuals?
How would you decide the case?
Accomplice Liability: Mens Rea
A conviction for accomplice liability requires
that a defendant both assist & intend to assist
in the commission of a crime.
Dual intents (when an accomplice is
required to intend or possess the purpose
that an individual commit a specific crime):
The intent to assist the primary party,
The intent that the primary party commit the
offense charged.
Accomplice Liability:
Mens Rea (cont.)
 Individuals will not be held liable as accomplices
for knowingly rather than purposely assisting in
crimes.
 Natural & Probable Doctrine—provides that a
person encouraging or facilitating the commission
of a crime will be held liable as an accomplice for
the crime he/she aided & abetted as well as for
crimes that are the natural & probable outcome of
the criminal conduct
6.2. You Decide: Manes
Would you charge Manes as an accomplice
to the Columbine High School murders?
What about as accomplice to the shooters’
suicides?
Discuss the issues surrounding the criminal
liability of Manes, if any, as provider of the
weapons & ammunitions used in the
Columbine High School shootings.
6.3. You Decide: Miller
 Was the (attempted) armed robbery during an
illegal firearm purchase a “natural & probable”
likelihood?
 What did the court mean when stating that the
“natural & probable” doctrine “presupposes an
outcome within a reasonably predictive range?”
 Should Roy also be held liable for the robbery
based on the doctrine?
6.4. You Decide: Williams
Did Williams possess the required criminal
intent to be held liable for any of the murders?
If so, which one(s) & why; if not, which one(s)
& why not?
Remember to rely on the elements needed to
satisfy the mens rea requirement for
accomplice liability.
Accessory After the Fact
Required Elements:
Commission of a felony
Knowledge (that the person committed a felony)
Affirmative act (to hinder the felon’s arrest)
Criminal intent (focused on hindering the
detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction,
&/or punishment of the individual receiving
assistance)
Accessory After the Fact (cont.)
Modern view—because accessories after the
fact are involved following the completion of a
crime, they should not be treated as harshly
as the perpetrator of the crime or any
accomplices
6.5. You Decide: Thorpe
Are Thorpe’s friend, White, and his wife,
Tracy, criminally liable as accessories after
the fact?
Why or why not?
Vicarious Liability
Imposes liability on an individual for a criminal
act committed by another person.
“They act & you are responsible.”
Used in order to hold employers & business
executives & corporations liable for the
criminal acts of employees.
Corporate Liability
 In 1909 the US Supreme Court stated that the
acts of employees “may be controlled in the
interests of public policy, by imputing his act to his
employer & imposing penalties upon the
corporation for which he is acting.”
 A corporate crime may result in the criminal
conviction of the employee committing the offense
as well as the extension vicarious liability to the
owner & to the corporation.
Corporate Liability (cont.)
Primary tests for determining whether a
corporation should be criminally liable under
the statute:
Respondeat Superior (the Responsibility of a
Superior)
Model Penal Code Section 2.07
Respondeat Superior extends vicarious
criminal liability to a corporation for the acts of
employees, even when such acts are contrary
to corporate policy.
Public Policy
There is an increasing trend toward holding
corporations criminally liable in order to
encourage corporate executives to vigorously
prevent & punish illegal activity.
Prevention of corporate misconduct is
important for several reasons…such as?
What do you think? Should we hold
corporations vicariously liable for illegal
actions by their employees? Why or why not?
Commonwealth v. Koczwara (1959)
6.6. You Decide: Tomaino
 Should the owner of the rental store, Tomaino,
be held criminally liable for his clerk’s actions—
renting sexually-oriented videos to a 17 year
old—while he was absent from the store?
 Tomaino was convicted…do you think his
conviction should be overturned? Could he
constitutionally be sent to prison? How is this
different than/similar to the Koczwara case?
 What about the lack of a posted sign? Is this
important? Why or why not?
Traffic Tickets
Most parking statutes consider the owner of
the vehicle prima facie responsible for
paying a ticket.
Basically then, unless one (vehicle owner)
presents evidence that he/she was not
responsible (not driving the car), he/she is
presumed liable for the traffic ticket.
Commonwealth v. Rudinski (1989)
Parents
About 17 states today have parental
responsibility laws.
Parental responsibility laws generally hold
parents responsible for the failure to take
reasonable steps to prevent their child(ren)
from engaging in serious or persistent
criminal behavior.
Parents (cont.)
Social host liability laws hold adults liable
for providing liquor to minors in their home in
the event that an accident or injury occurs.
Teen party ordinances state that it is
criminal for an adult to host a party for minors
at which alcohol is served.
Williams v. Garcetti (1993)
Key Issues
 Parties to a crime (complicity)
 Vicarious liability
 Common law parties
 Modern/contemporary parties
Accomplices (before & during the crime)
Accessories (after the crime)
 Derivative liability
 Accomplice liability
Actus reus & mens rea requirements
Key Issues (cont.)
 Accessory liability
Required elements
 Vicarious liability
 Corporate liability
Respondeat superior
Model Penal Code Section 2.07
 Public Policy
 Automobile liability (traffic tickets)
 Parental liability
Parental responsibility laws & other statutes