Question 1

The mens rea of accomplice liability requires the dual intents of ______ and ______.

Accepted Answer

The mens rea for accomplice liability involves the intent to assist the primary party in committing the crime and the intent that the primary party actually commits the offense.

Question 2

All of the following individuals would be capable of being charged as an accessory after the fact with common law EXCEPT ______.

Accepted Answer

Under common law, a wife (now extended to spouses generally in many jurisdictions) cannot be charged as an accessory after the fact to a crime committed by her husband due to the legal doctrine of marital privilege. This principle was based on the idea of preserving marital harmony and the unity of the husband and wife as one legal entity.

Question 3

Vicarious liability imposes liability on an individual in what circumstance?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Vicarious liability imposes liability on an individual...

Question 4

Juan was a high-ranking member of the gangster disciples who was imprisoned in a maximum security federal facility. He regularly calls lower ranking members and instructs them to do his bidding on the street. Juan recently called a member and instructed him to do a drive by shooting at the home of a fellow member who has been associating with a rival gang. What theory will extend criminal liability to Juan?

Accepted Answer

Accomplice liability applies because Juan, though not present at the crime scene, facilitated the commission of the crime by instructing a lower-ranking member to carry out the drive-by shooting, making him criminally liable as an accomplice.

Question 5

Which is a feature of the modern view of accessories after the fact?

Accepted Answer

Modern legal systems have evolved to recognize that spouses can be held accountable for their actions as accessories after the fact, removing previous immunities that might have existed.

Question 6

Does the natural and probable consequences doctrine does apply if the defendant would not have participated in the criminal act had he known what events would unfold during the commission of the crime?

Accepted Answer

The natural and probable consequences doctrine holds that a defendant can be held liable for additional crimes committed during the commission of a crime he participated in, if those additional crimes were reasonably foreseeable outcomes of the initial criminal act. This doctrine does not require the defendant to have intended the specific outcomes, only that they were a natural and probable consequence of the criminal act they were involved in.

Question 7

Both principals and accessories were punishable as felons under what?

Accepted Answer

Under common law, both principals (those who commit the crime) and accessories (those who assist in the commission of the crime) were punishable as felons. This system categorized participants in a crime based on their roles and involvement.

Question 8

Which legal concept holds parties liable for criminal conduct based on their relationship to the perpetrator of a crime?

Accepted Answer

Vicarious liability is a legal concept that holds one party liable for the actions of another based on their relationship, such as an employer being held liable for the actions of an employee.

Question 9

Dante recently bought a new Mustang GT. He loves his car. His little brother just turned 16 and hasn't saved up enough money to buy a car of his own yet. The brother asks Dante to borrow the car. Dante agrees but insists on riding along to make sure everything goes smoothly. Dante sleeps in the passenger seat as his brother runs his errands. They stop at the grocery store and the brother walks out without paying for his entire cart full of groceries. The store employees are unable to stop the brother but they do get the license plate of the mustang as it pulls away. Will Dante be considered an accessory after the fact for providing the getaway car?

Accepted Answer

Dante did not commit an affirmative act to hinder the arrest or assist in the crime; he was unaware and asleep during the incident.

Question 10

Jordan and Valentina were selling imitation designer handbags on the streets of Chicago. Ina buys a bag thinking it is the real thing and makes sure to proudly display it in front of all. Later that day she sets it on the seat next to her in her subway car. The bag is stolen by Nina who runs out of the train car and onto the bustling platform. Ina follows Nina and attempts to take back the bag. Joe comes to Ina's defense and wrestles the bag from Nina. When the altercation is all said and done Nina goes home with the bag. Joe helped her wrestle it from Ina. And Ina goes home bagless. May Joe be considered an accessory after the fact?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Jordan and Valentina were selling imitation designer...

Question 11

For which of these actions will an individual be held liable as an accomplice?

Accepted Answer

The answer of For which of these actions will an...

Question 12

Which case recognized that although the defendant did not intend to kill the victim, he committed the robbery in which it took place, and the murder was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's participation in the robbery?

Accepted Answer

State v. Linscott recognized the principle that a defendant can be held liable for a murder that occurs during the commission of a robbery if the murder was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's participation in the robbery.

Question 13

Deirdre planned to bomb her high school. She enlisted numerous friends to help her plan and carry out the attack. Jonathan helped her build the bomb but did not participate in setting it off at the school. Tammy acted as a lookout when she placed and detonated the bomb in the school. Kevin drove her to the school and served as the getaway car after detonation. Samantha, her protective little sister, threw away the diagrams and information she found in Deirdre's bedroom days after the incident occurred. Which of these individuals will be charged with the least serious offense?

Accepted Answer

Samantha's actions, which involved disposing of evidence after the fact, would likely be considered as obstructing justice or accessory after the fact, which are generally less serious offenses compared to actively participating in the planning, building, or execution of the bombing.

Question 14

While individuals cannot be liable for simply being in the presence of a crime, State v. Walden illustrates an exception to the rule because the defendant allowed an acquaintance to brutally beat her young son. This exception arises where defendants possess ______.

Accepted Answer

In State v. Walden, the exception to the rule that individuals cannot be liable for simply being in the presence of a crime is based on the defendant's duty to intervene, especially in a situation where they have the ability to prevent harm to a vulnerable individual, such as a child, and fail to do so.

Question 15

The following statement matches which element of accessory after the fact? The defendant must provide assistance with the intent or purpose of hindering detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of the individual receiving assistance.

Accepted Answer

This statement describes the element of "criminal intent" in the context of being an accessory after the fact. It specifies that the defendant's assistance must be provided with the specific intent or purpose of hindering law enforcement processes related to another individual's criminal conduct.

Question 16

What provides that being present and watching the commission of a crime is not sufficient to satisfy the actus reus requirement of accomplice liability?

Accepted Answer

The mere presence rule provides that simply being present at the scene of a crime and watching it happen is not enough to fulfill the actus reus requirement for accomplice liability. To be considered an accomplice, one must have actively participated in the crime or encouraged its commission in some way.

Question 17

Which case provides that there is an exception to the mere presence doctrine when the defendant possesses a duty to intervene?

Accepted Answer

State v. Walden establishes an exception to the mere presence doctrine, recognizing situations where the defendant has a duty to intervene, thus making their presence relevant to their culpability.

Question 18

What is the essence of accessory after the fact according to the Model Penal Code?

Accepted Answer

Accessory after the fact involves actions that interfere with the functioning of the legal process, such as helping a principal offender avoid arrest, trial, or conviction.

Question 19

The requirement of purposeful conduct in the mens rea of accomplice liability is the result of which case?

Accepted Answer

United States v. Peoni is the case that established the requirement of purposeful conduct in the mens rea of accomplice liability, setting a precedent that an accomplice must have the intent to further the commission of the crime.

Question 20

A conviction for accomplice liability requires that a defendant both ______.

Accepted Answer

Accomplice liability requires that a defendant both assist in the commission of a crime and have the intent to assist in that crime. This means the defendant must have taken some action or provided some form of support to help commit the crime, and must have done so with the intention of facilitating the crime's commission.

Quiz 6: Parties to Crime and Vicarious Liability

The mens rea of accomplice liability requires the dual intents of and .