conspiracy - Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo

Aiding and Abetting and Conspiracy in Criminal Law

Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 00:36:00 GMT

Volumes of the Thomson West annotated version of the California Penal Code, the codification of criminal law in the state of California (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of the most confusing issues in criminal law concerns liability under conspiracy or aiding and abetting theory. Put succinctly, if someone helps another in the commission of the crime but does not actually commit the crime, both people are still guilty of the offense. For example, if two people agree they will work together to rob a home and person A acts as the lookout for the untimely return of the homeowners and person B actually enters the home, then the law recognizes that both persons may be charged with burglarizing the home even if person A never actually enters the home.

The elements for conspiracy or aiding and abetting in California are as follows:

The perpetrator committed the crime;
The defendant knew the perpetrator intended to commit the crime;
Before or during the commission of the crime, the defendant intended to aid and abet the perpetrator in committing the crime; AND
The Defendant’s words or conduct did in fact aid and abet the perpetrator’s commission of the crime.

Notably, as long as the elements above are met the defendant does not even have to be present at the crime scene to be considered an aider and abettor. Similarly, the presence of someone at the scene does not necessarily mean they aided and abetted; the elements above must be met.

A person who begins as an aider and abettor may avoid criminal liability by withdrawing before the crime is committed. To do so they must:

Notify everyone they know who is involved with the crime that they are withdrawing; and
Must do everything within their power to prevent the commission of the crime although they need not actually prevent the crime from occurring.

One of the more difficult notions to understand about the laws surround aiding and abetting is when there is a foreseeable but unexpected consequence of the conspiracy to commit a crime. For example, if two individuals conspire to rob a bank and person A acts as a lookout and person B goes into the bank with a gun to rob it and ends up shooting and killing the bank guard, then both person A and person B may be charged with murder. The jury instructions require that the jury first find the Defendants guilty of the initially contemplated offense (bank robbery) before moving on to the indirect offense (murder). In order to prove the Defendants guilty of murder, they must find that murder was a natural and probable consequence of bank robbery. See Penal Code Section 182.

Baby Selling Business Exposed

Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 01:57:00 GMT

In San Diego Superior Court three women have been charged for their child selling plot. Two of the women Hilary Neiman and Theresa Erickson are attorneys who have pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The third woman, Carla Chambers pled guilty to conspiracy to make money from an unlawful activity. The process included having women agree to go to Ukraine where they would be implanted with embryos from donated sperm and eggs. Then Neiman and Chambers would look for parents for the unborn children. They told parents or a single person that the couple that was going to adopt the baby had reconsidered. The new interested parents would then pay $100,000 to $150,000. The gestational carrier would be paid $38,000- $40,000. Erickson then submitted documentation to the San Diego County Superior Court falsely stating that there had been an agreement between the carrier and couple prior to the pregnancy. Documents show that Chambers was a carrier multiple times and recruited other women to become carriers. All the women face 5 years in prison.

Defense Lawyers Want Lid on DA’s Office in Irvine 11 Case

Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo — Mon, 16 May 2011 17:41:00 GMT

Defense attorneys have filed a motion that would limit the public statements given by the District Attorney’s office in regards to the on-going case against 11 UC Irvine students. The motion argues that chief of staff for Orange County District Attorney, Susan Kang Schroeder and Assistant D.A. Dan Wagner have made public statements that were “ethically irresponsible”. It is also argued that Mr. Wagner acted inappropriately by offering his personal opinion that the students were guilty. Ms. Kang Schroeder and Mr. Wagner have both expressed their disagreement with the motion. Later this month the motion will be heard, in addition to another motion requesting that the transcripts from the grand jury investigation be excluded from evidence in the eventual trial. On June 17 a motion to recuse the District Attorney’s office from the case will be heard. All eleven students are charged with one count of conspiracy to disturb a meeting and one count of disturbing a meeting. Both charges are misdemeanors that come with a six months jail sentence, or community service, probation or fines. See, Penal Code Sections 415, 415.5 and 416.

Corrupt Judge Incarcerated Juveniles for Profit

Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:59:00 GMT

In Pennsylvania a juvenile court judge was convicted of racketeering, money laundering and conspiracy for a total of 12 counts. The crime involved receiving money from a detention center in exchange for sentencing juveniles to that particular facility. The judge, Michael Ciavarella allegedly worked to close the county juvenile facility then use a new private center that he and others were going to approve for construction. According to an article, people had complained about the judge’s often harsh punishment for minor offenses. Ciavarella sent 25% of defendants to juvenile detention in comparison to the state norm of 10%. There were also concerns that the judge denied defendants’ legal counsel when entering a plea. This corruption has created a situation where a large group of juvenile offenders might be in custody unreasonably and their cases might need a second look. As county employees, the judges enjoy immunity from civil prosecution for their work on the bench. It would make it difficult for parents for example, to sue for compensation. It is unclear how much the Judge received from the detention facility.