Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
23. In addition to the woman, who could properly be convicted of murder in the death of the customer at common law?
During the robbery, the woman used the gun to threaten a bank teller into handing over money. The gun discharged by accident and killed a bank customer. The friend drove the woman away from the bank.
The woman then drove to a sporting goods store, where she explained to the store owner that she needed a small firearm for use in a bank robbery. The store owner responded that he would charge extra because the woman was so unwise as to confide her unlawful plans for using the weapon, and he sold her a handgun at four times the regular price.
A woman who wanted to rob a bank offered to pay her friend one-third of the money she stole if the friend would drive the getaway car to be used in the robbery. The friend agreed but made the woman promise not to hurt anyone during the robbery.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
An accomplice is one who aids or abets another in a criminal act or enterprise, with the intent to encourage the commission of the crime. Mere presence at a crime scene is not enough; there must be some assistance. An accomplice is liable for the original crime and other foreseeable crimes committed by the principal in furtherance of the crime.
A is correct. Here, the friend is an accomplice because she agreed to help the woman rob the store by acting as a getaway driver. Accordingly, the friend will be held criminally responsible for the foreseeable consequences of the woman in furtherance of the conspiracy, even if she did not intend the murder to occur. Because the friend agreed to drive the getaway vehicle after a bank robbery, it was foreseeable that the woman would use a weapon and end up killing someone during the robbery. Furthermore, the store owner sold the woman the gun with knowledge of the woman's plan to use it in a crime. He even sold the gun at a higher price because of the woman's illicit purpose, and he took a financial benefit from that knowledge. These facts suggest the store owner was sufficiently involved to impose accomplice liability.
B is incorrect. Here, the friend and the store owner are both accomplices to the murder because they aided and abetted the woman in the robbery, with the intent to encourage the commission of the crime: the store owner knew of the woman's purpose and provided a gun and, got a financial gain from the gun sale. The friend agreed to act as a getaway driver for one-third of the money.
C is incorrect. The store owner could also be convicted of the murder because his actions are sufficient to show he aided the woman in the robbery, with the intent to encourage the commission of the robbery. The store owner's sale of the gun, combined with his knowledge of the woman's plan to use it in a crime and his financial benefit from that knowledge, is likely sufficient to impose accomplice liability.
D is incorrect. The friend could be convicted of the murder because her actions are sufficient to show she aided the woman in the robbery, with the intent to encourage the commission of the robbery. The friend could be convicted of the murder because she is responsible for the unintended but reasonably foreseeable acts of her co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy. The woman's promise not to kill anyone does not free the friend from accomplice liability, as the promise did not withdraw the friend from the conspiracy to commit the robbery, which is the underlying felony for felony murder.