31. Which of the following additional pieces of evidence would be most useful to the prosecutor's effort to convict the woman as an accomplice to the man's violation of the statute?

Accomplice liability requires one to aid, abet, or facilitate the commission of a crime with the intent that crime be committed. A defendant may meet this standard by offering «mere encouragement» to the criminal perpetrator. There is no minimum standard for that encouragement, and it does not have to present a clear and present danger in order to qualify.

Under modern accomplice liability theory, an accomplice may be convicted even if the principal is not convicted, or is not charged, or even if the principal's identity is unknown. (Otherwise, members of criminal syndicates could avoid incurring accomplice liability simply by not revealing their identities to each other.) The prosecution must prove that someone committed the underlying crime, and then may pursue accomplice liability for one who aided, abetted, or facilitated that commission of that crime.

B is correct. If the woman charges the man a considerably higher rent than a prior tenant who used the office for non-criminal purposes, that could be useful to prove that the woman has a stake in the success of the man's illegal betting parlor. This could help a prosecutor prove that the woman provided the office space in order to aid, abet, or facilitate the man's illegal activities because she was benefitting from his success.

A is incorrect. Previously running a betting parlor in the same location could prove that the woman is aware that one may use the office for that purpose, but it does not demonstrate that she aided, abetted, or facilitated the man's criminal betting parlor, nor that she had a stake in its success.

C is incorrect. Showing that the woman has placed bets with the man at the office location would confirm her awareness that the man is using the office as an illegal betting parlor. It would not necessarily show that she has a personal stake in the continuing success of the man's criminal venture, however, and thus it would not aid a prosecutor in proving the woman's intent to aid in that venture. The woman could have lost money by placing bets with the man.

D is incorrect. The source of the rent money is irrelevant to proving that the woman was benefitting from the man's illegal gambling operation any more than she would benefit from a tenant who paid the market price to rent the office. Therefore, it would not prove her intent to act as the man's accomplice and that she had a personal stake in the success of the illegal betting parlor.