How to avoid aiding and abetting family with an active warrant

The inchoate crime of aiding and abetting applies to an individual who assists in a crime, but does not commit the crime himself. This person is also known as an “accessory to the crime.” Aiding and abetting varies greatly by state, with some states varying the severity of the charge depending on the level of involvement of the accessory.

Accessory and Principal

Aiding and abetting requires the existence of both a “principal” and an “accessory.” The principal is the person who is primarily responsible for the crime and who likely ultimately committed the crime. If two or more individuals are responsible for a crime they can be charged as joint principals. The accessory is the person who assists with the crime but is not directly involved with its actual commission. Typically, the test for distinguishing between the two is whether the person directly contributed to the crime (a principal) or merely provided background help or assistance (an accessory).

Elements of Aiding and Abetting

A charge of aiding and abetting has three requirements. First, someone else must have committed a crime. Second, the defendant must have assisted that person in the commission of the crime. Third, the defendant must have had knowledge of that person’s criminal intent or criminal plans. An individual will not be found guilty for accidentally assisting in a crime. For instance, if a man knows that his friends have committed a crime and are trying to escape and he causes an accident in order to allow them to get away from the police, this could be aiding and abetting. However, if the same man is involved in an accident that allows burglars to get away from the police, but he has no knowledge of the burglary or the effect his accident would have, he cannot be charged with aiding and abetting.

An accessory to a crime can have knowledge of criminal intent before, or after, the commission of the crime. An individual who is aware of the crime before it occurs and gives assistance in preparation to commit the crime is called an “accessory before the fact.” If an individual only learns of the crime after it has taken place, but provides assistance in the aftermath of the crime, he is known as an “accessory after the fact.”

The types of actions that constitute assistance to a crime vary greatly. A person may provide advice, supplies, financial support, or engage in actions such as acting as a lookout or driving the getaway car. Where the assistance the accessory provides rises to the level of significant involvement in planning the crime, this can elevate the charge from aiding and abetting to conspiracy.

Punishment

In most states, accessories face lesser punishment than principals for crimes that are committed. However, other states consider accessories just as guilty as principals because they also intended for the crime to be committed. It is important to check the laws of your state in order to determine what punishments may apply.

It is also important to note that even if a principal is not convicted of a crime (perhaps because of mistaken identity or another defense), the accessory may still be charged with aiding and abetting if a crime was committed and he assisted in the commission of that crime.

Some states allow a defense of abandonment or withdrawal for an individual charged with aiding and abetting. For instance, in California, a defendant may be found not guilty if he can establish that he notified everyone else involved in the crime that he was no longer participating in the crime and that he did everything reasonably within his power to prevent the crime from being committed, such as reporting the planned crime to the police.

Created byВ FindLaw’s team of legal writers and editors | Last updated March 25, 2019

Complicity is the act of helping or encouraging another individual to commit a crime. It is also commonly referred to as aiding and abetting. One who is complicit is said to be an accomplice. But, even though an accomplice does not actually commit the crime, his or her actions helped someone in the commission of the crime.

The concept of accomplice liability means an accomplice faces the same degree of guilt and punishment as the individual who committed the crime. Indeed, accomplices can face the same penalties, including prison time. The key consideration is whether the individual intentionally and voluntarily encouraged or assisted in the commission of the crime, or (in some cases) failed to prevent it.

Elements of Accomplice Liability

While it varies by state, a prosecutor typically must be able to prove the following four elements to convict someone of being an accomplice or aiding and abetting:

  • A crime was committed by another individual;
  • The defendant “aided, counseled, commanded, or encouraged” the other person in the commission of the crime.
  • The defendant acted with the requisite mental state in their jurisdiction, for example, knowingly or purposefully, to assist in the crime.

Examples of Complicity

The following examples illustrate the many ways an individual may be an accomplice to a criminal act:

  • Serving as the getaway driver in a bank robbery.
  • Turning off the alarm system of a jewelry store in which you work, knowing that it will be robbed later that evening.
  • Loaning a handgun to someone who you know is planning to commit a crime.
  • Directing a vehicle to a dead-end street where you know an armed carjacker is waiting.

The Difference Between Complicity and Conspiracy

Each state’s criminal charges will vary, but typically if you takes an active role in the planning of a crime, you could be charged with being part of a conspiracy. A conspirator agrees with others to commit a future crime, while an accomplice assists, in some way, in the actual commission of a crime. Furthermore, unlike accomplices to a crime, conspirators can be guilty even if their plan is not completed.

Example: If a group of individuals gets together, agrees to plan and commit a robbery, and takes an overt action to accomplish their plan (e.g. purchasing a car, guns, and tools for the robbery), they could each be charged with the crime of conspiracy to commit robbery, even if the robbery never happens. However, if and when the planned robbery is committed by the individuals, they could be charged with both conspiracy and robbery (as principals or accomplices, depending on their role in the robbery).

Get Legal Help with Your Questions About Complicity or Accomplice Liability

Being accused of accomplice liability is a serious matter. Whether the government is charging you with being the criminal mastermind or driving the getaway car, you should seek legal advice before making any decisions about your case. Speak with a skilled criminal defense attorney in your area to answer your initial questions about complicity or charges as an accomplice to an offense.

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A white police officer accused in the death of George Floyd had used neck or head and upper body restraints seven times before, including four incidents in which prosecutors say he went too far, according to prosecution documents released Friday in the case against four former Minneapolis officers charged in Floyd’s death.

In one July 2019 arrest, prosecutors say, Derek Chauvin kicked an intoxicated male in the midsection, then applied a neck restraint until he fell unconscious. In June 2017, Chauvin restrained an arrested female by placing his knee on her neck while she was prone on the ground, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors said in those cases and in two others, Chauvin held the restraints “beyond the point when such force was needed under the circumstances.”

The list of Chauvin’s arrests involving restraints dates to 2014. It was made public on the same day that Chauvin and three other former officers appeared in court for a hearing on the prosecution’s request to hold a joint trial , a defense request to move the trial out of Minneapolis, and other issues. Judge Peter Cahill took most issues under advisement.

Floyd, a Black man in handcuffs, died May 25 after Chauvin pressed his knee against Floyd’s neck even as Floyd said he couldn’t breathe. Floyd’s death was captured in widely seen bystander video that set off protests, sometimes violent, that spread around the world. The officers were fired. Chauvin is charged with second-degree murder and other crimes; Thomas Lane, J. Kueng and Tou Thao are charged with aiding and abetting.

Chauvin appeared in court for the first time after attending previous hearings via videoconference from the state prison where he’s being held. He didn’t make eye contact with other defendants as he arrived.

The Associated Press has made requests for detailed personnel records of Chauvin and the other officers, including any complaints and disciplinary action. The police reports mentioned by prosecutors in their court filing were not immediately available Friday. Chauvin’s attorney, Eric Nelson, had no comment on the prosecution document.

Prosecutors said in their filing that they intend to offer evidence of these incidents at trial, because they anticipate Chauvin will claim he didn’t intentionally assault Floyd in a way that’s inconsistent with his training. Prosecutors plan to file a more detailed memorandum in the future.

  • – Virginia lawmakers push to expand police decertification law
  • – 4 Houston officers fired after fatally shooting man in April
  • – Lawyers for ex-cops raise Floyd’s history of crime, drug use

In addition to the arrests in which Chauvin used neck or head and upper body restraints, prosecutors also listed an August 2015 incident in which Chauvin saw other officers place a suicidal and intoxicated male into a side-recovery position after using a stun gun on him. Prosecutors noted the officers received a commendation, after medical professionals said the male could have died if they prolonged his detention.

Similar documents were filed in the cases against Thao and Keung. Prosecutors listed nine incidents in which Thao was reprimanded for not responding appropriately to a scene, intentionally avoiding police response or falsifying reports. The documents say that in two cases, in 2012 and 2017, Thao tried to manipulate domestic-abuse victims to answer questions in a way that would allow him to avoid filing a domestic abuse report.

Prosecutors said Kueng was involved in one arrest in December 2019 in which he and other officers struck an intoxicated and uncooperative individual and pinned the person to the ground in a prone position to apply handcuffs, then brought him to his feet after he calmed down.

During Friday’s hearing, prosecutors told Cahill that the four former officers should face trial together because the evidence and charges against them are similar and multiple trials could traumatize witnesses and Floyd’s family.

Neal Katyal, an outside special attorney for the prosecution, said multiple trials would place a heavy burden on the court and witnesses, and could delay justice for months or years. He also raised the possibility that a verdict in an initial trial could prejudice the jury pool for later trials.

A joint trial “would allow the community to absorb the verdicts at once. . We don’t think they should be put through the trauma of four different jury verdicts,” he said.

But defense attorneys argued for separate trials, saying they would likely offer “antagonistic” defenses and that the evidence against one officer could hurt another.

The officers have already done plenty of finger-pointing in court filings. Attorneys for Lane and Kueng argued their clients were rookies who followed Chauvin’s lead. Thao’s attorney, Bob Paule, said his client’s role was “absolutely distinct” from the others, because he was on crowd control while the others restrained Floyd.

Nelson, Chauvin’s attorney, wrote that the other men are already saying that if Chauvin committed a crime, they didn’t know about it or assist.

“They blame Chauvin,” he wrote.

But Chauvin pointed fingers, too. Nelson wrote that Lane and Kueng — the officers who responded to a forgery call — initiated contact with Floyd and that while they called for a paramedic and believed Floyd was “on something,” they didn’t elevate the call to one of more urgency or give medical assistance.

“If EMS had arrived just three minutes sooner, Mr. Floyd may have survived. If Kueng and Lane had chosen to de-escalate instead of struggle, Mr. Floyd may have survived. If Kueng and Lane had recognized the apparent signs of an opioid overdose and rendered aid, such as administering naloxone, Mr. Floyd may have survived,” Nelson wrote.

Ben Crump, an attorney for Floyd’s family members, told a crowd gathered outside the courthouse that defense filings highlighting Floyd’s drug use amount to killing him a second time.

“They are trying to claim some asinine theory about an overdose. I want to be clear about this. The only overdose that killed George Floyd was an overdose of excessive force and racism by the . Minneapolis Police Department,” Crump said.

“Who are you going to believe, your eyes or these killer cops?” he said.

Cahill took the issue of a joint trial under advisement. He also deferred discussion on whether the trial should be moved from Minneapolis. Attorneys for all four men have said pretrial publicity has made it impossible for them to receive a fair trial in Hennepin County. But Cahill said he would like to send out questionnaires to potential jurors to find out whether they’ve been affected by pretrial coverage.

Cahill granted a defense request to remove a local prosecutor from the case. Cahill said Friday that four Hennepin County prosecutors, including County Attorney Mike Freeman, are disqualified because they met with the medical examiner to discuss autopsy results. Cahill said they could be called as witnesses because the cause of Floyd’s death is in dispute. Freeman has long been out of favor with local activists for the way his office has handled cases against police officers.

Freeman issued a statement saying his office did nothing wrong and followed the rules, and that he’s confident Cahill’s order will be withdrawn or changed.

Before the hearing, a few dozen protesters gathered in front of the courthouse, chanting “No justice, no peace.” One carried a Black Lives Matter flag and wore a black helmet with swim goggles around the back of his head. By the time the hearing ended, a large, loud crowd had gathered outside. Some beat drums while others chanted anti-police slogans. They loudly jeered defense attorneys as they left the courthouse.

Author: Joshua Brumley

Nov 15, 2019

Whether it was on the evening news or your favorite courtroom drama, you’ve probably heard the term “aiding and abetting” a few times. But do you know exactly what it is? Learn more about the possible ways you could get in trouble, even if you didn’t commit a crime.

What Is the Legal Definition? The crime of aiding and abetting refers to “a person’s action to help, support or approve of someone else’s illegal act.” U.S. laws relating to aiding and abetting date back to 1790 and have been updated several times since.

Proving the Crime In order to convict someone of aiding and abetting a federal crime, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person not only knew about a crime that someone else perpetrated, but they also specifically assisted with some element of the crime, even in a seemingly minor way.

Accessories and Accomplices Many people often use the terms “accessory” and “accomplice” interchangeably, but there is a difference. An accessory is a person who probably isn’t there when the crime is being committed but who becomes a participant either before or after the act. An accomplice intentionally assists with the illegal activity.

How to Avoid Aiding and Abetting There are several ways you can avoid becoming an accessory or an accomplice. Don’t handle stolen goods. Don’t hide or destroy evidence of a crime. Don’t allow someone who is running from the law to stay with you, and don’t give them money if they ask for it. Encourage them to turn themselves in to law enforcement, and be truthful if the police question you about the person in trouble.

If you have questions about your case, please contact us at [email protected] or (253) 236-4079.

We are a skilled legal team offering client centered legal services in the Western Washington region. We give you peace of mind while facilitating your legal solutions.

  • King County
  • Pierce County
  • Kitsap County

Family Lawyer

Family Law matters are never easy. Let our experienced team guide you and ease some of the emotional burden while .

Criminal Lawyers

Criminal cases have serious consequences that can affect all aspects of your life. Our team has the experience to .

Personal Injury Lawyer

We’re here to help you get the compensation you need to get your life back to normal after any type of .

Business Lawyers

Business Law is fundamental to our practice. With two business lawyers in house holding MBAs, we are prepared to .

Created byВ FindLaw’s team of legal writers and editors | Last updated March 25, 2019

Complicity is the act of helping or encouraging another individual to commit a crime. It is also commonly referred to as aiding and abetting. One who is complicit is said to be an accomplice. But, even though an accomplice does not actually commit the crime, his or her actions helped someone in the commission of the crime.

The concept of accomplice liability means an accomplice faces the same degree of guilt and punishment as the individual who committed the crime. Indeed, accomplices can face the same penalties, including prison time. The key consideration is whether the individual intentionally and voluntarily encouraged or assisted in the commission of the crime, or (in some cases) failed to prevent it.

Elements of Accomplice Liability

While it varies by state, a prosecutor typically must be able to prove the following four elements to convict someone of being an accomplice or aiding and abetting:

  • A crime was committed by another individual;
  • The defendant “aided, counseled, commanded, or encouraged” the other person in the commission of the crime.
  • The defendant acted with the requisite mental state in their jurisdiction, for example, knowingly or purposefully, to assist in the crime.

Examples of Complicity

The following examples illustrate the many ways an individual may be an accomplice to a criminal act:

  • Serving as the getaway driver in a bank robbery.
  • Turning off the alarm system of a jewelry store in which you work, knowing that it will be robbed later that evening.
  • Loaning a handgun to someone who you know is planning to commit a crime.
  • Directing a vehicle to a dead-end street where you know an armed carjacker is waiting.

The Difference Between Complicity and Conspiracy

Each state’s criminal charges will vary, but typically if you takes an active role in the planning of a crime, you could be charged with being part of a conspiracy. A conspirator agrees with others to commit a future crime, while an accomplice assists, in some way, in the actual commission of a crime. Furthermore, unlike accomplices to a crime, conspirators can be guilty even if their plan is not completed.

Example: If a group of individuals gets together, agrees to plan and commit a robbery, and takes an overt action to accomplish their plan (e.g. purchasing a car, guns, and tools for the robbery), they could each be charged with the crime of conspiracy to commit robbery, even if the robbery never happens. However, if and when the planned robbery is committed by the individuals, they could be charged with both conspiracy and robbery (as principals or accomplices, depending on their role in the robbery).

Get Legal Help with Your Questions About Complicity or Accomplice Liability

Being accused of accomplice liability is a serious matter. Whether the government is charging you with being the criminal mastermind or driving the getaway car, you should seek legal advice before making any decisions about your case. Speak with a skilled criminal defense attorney in your area to answer your initial questions about complicity or charges as an accomplice to an offense.

Resources

  • Search Minnesota Statutes
  • About Minnesota Statutes
  • 2020 Statutes New, Amended or Repealed
  • 2020 Table of Chapters
  • 2020 Statutes Topics (Index)

Chapter 609

  • Table of Sections
  • Full Chapter Text
  • Version List

Section 609.05

Topics

  • Accessories to crime
  • Accomplices
  • Children
  • Conspiracy
  • Crimes
  • Criminal conspiracy

Subdivision 1. Aiding, abetting; liability.

A person is criminally liable for a crime committed by another if the person intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime.

Subd. 2. Expansive liability.

A person liable under subdivision 1 is also liable for any other crime committed in pursuance of the intended crime if reasonably foreseeable by the person as a probable consequence of committing or attempting to commit the crime intended.

Subd. 3. Abandonment of criminal purpose.

A person who intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures another to commit a crime and thereafter abandons that purpose and makes a reasonable effort to prevent the commission of the crime prior to its commission is not liable if the crime is thereafter committed.

Subd. 4. Circumstances of conviction.

A person liable under this section may be charged with and convicted of the crime although the person who directly committed it has not been convicted, or has been convicted of some other degree of the crime or of some other crime based on the same act, or if the person is a juvenile who has not been found delinquent for the act.

Subd. 5. Definition.

For purposes of this section, a crime also includes an act committed by a juvenile that would be a crime if committed by an adult.

Resources

  • Search Minnesota Statutes
  • About Minnesota Statutes
  • 2020 Statutes New, Amended or Repealed
  • 2020 Table of Chapters
  • 2020 Statutes Topics (Index)

Chapter 609

  • Table of Sections
  • Full Chapter Text
  • Version List

Section 609.05

Topics

  • Accessories to crime
  • Accomplices
  • Children
  • Conspiracy
  • Crimes
  • Criminal conspiracy

Subdivision 1. Aiding, abetting; liability.

A person is criminally liable for a crime committed by another if the person intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime.

Subd. 2. Expansive liability.

A person liable under subdivision 1 is also liable for any other crime committed in pursuance of the intended crime if reasonably foreseeable by the person as a probable consequence of committing or attempting to commit the crime intended.

Subd. 3. Abandonment of criminal purpose.

A person who intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures another to commit a crime and thereafter abandons that purpose and makes a reasonable effort to prevent the commission of the crime prior to its commission is not liable if the crime is thereafter committed.

Subd. 4. Circumstances of conviction.

A person liable under this section may be charged with and convicted of the crime although the person who directly committed it has not been convicted, or has been convicted of some other degree of the crime or of some other crime based on the same act, or if the person is a juvenile who has not been found delinquent for the act.

Subd. 5. Definition.

For purposes of this section, a crime also includes an act committed by a juvenile that would be a crime if committed by an adult.

Can I Go To Jail If I Let Someone Live With Me When He Has A Warrant For His Arrest? (PC 32)

Basically, the short answer to this question is YES, if you let the person live in your home and you know that he has a warrant out for his arrest. If you are facing an accessory charge it is imperative to consult a criminal defense attorney.

Prosecution for Acting as an Accessory

Penal Code Section 32 provides as follows: An accessory is a person “who, after a felony has been committed, harbors, conceals, or aids a principal in such felony, with the intent that said person may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having knowledge that said principal has committed such felony or has been charged with such felony or convicted thereof…” (The People v. Jane Nuckles (2013) 2013 DJDAR 5168)

To be found guilty of a violation of “accessory” the prosecution must prove the following FOUR elements:

• Assuming you are charged as an “accessory,” someone other than you must have committed a specific and completed felony. (This other person is known as the “principal.”)
• You must have “harbored, concealed, or aided” the principal
• You knew at that time that the principal had committed a felony, or had been convicted of or charged with a felony, AND
• You intended at that time for the principal to avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment

What the above-mentioned law means is that if a loved one wishes to come live in your home, it is better for you to NOT ask any questions about his “warrant status,” since “knowledge” is a critical element that must be proven by the prosecution in an accessory case (PC 32). If the DA cannot prove that you knew your loved one had a warrant for his arrest, then you should not be convicted of this crime.

Having a warrant out for your arrest can only lead to you living your life in fear of arrest. If you or a loved one has a warrant out for his arrest, the smartest thing you can do is to contact an experienced criminal defense law firm to help you.

California Criminal Defense Attorney

Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience successfully resolving all types of accessory cases. If you are facing an accessory charge or have a warrant out for your arrest, please call 888-4-NO-JAIL to speak with one of our experienced California criminal defense attorneys. With offices located in Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, West Covina, Victorville, Torrance, and Sherman Oaks there is a Wallin & Klarich attorney available wherever you happen to live. We will be there when you call.

Author: Matthew Wallin

Matthew B. Wallin is an experienced and knowledgeable attorney at Wallin & Klarich. He approaches each case as an opportunity to help an individual at a time when they need it most and understands that he is the one they have turned to for help. Mr. Wallin has represented hundreds of our clients in cases involving DUI and DMV hearings, domestic violence, assault and battery, drug crimes, misdemeanors and serious felonies. With extensive experience handling DUI cases, Mr. Wallin is one of the premiere DUI defense attorney in Southern California. View all posts by Matthew Wallin

Contact Us Now

Related Testimonials

My brother was convicted of second degree murder in Los Angeles County. He was sentenced to 16 years to life in state prison. I hired Stephen Klarich from the law firm of Wallin and Klarich to work on his appeal. Our family was very worried and fearful he would spend the rest of his life … Continue reading “PC 1237 | Appeals Testimonials”

ARSON: “My husband and I received a shock recently when our son was arrested for starting a fire at a state park. But our shock turned into horror when he was charged with felony arson. We immediately hired the Law Firm of Wallin & Klarich. After a review of the evidence, Wallin & Klarich had … Continue reading “Client Testimonials: Arson”

“I had a $30,000 arrest warrant for a DUI probation violation, and I was looking at the possibility of jail. Wallin & Klarich was able to recall the warrant and reinstate my probation without jail. What a relief. Wallin & Klarich was a good investment. Thank you for keeping me out of jail.” -B.G.

How to avoid aiding and abetting family with an active warrant

Contact Us Now

If you or a loved one have been accused of a crime, this is the time to contact us.