Shushana’s boyfriend told her about his plan to rob a bank with a friend. Although Shushana expressed concerns about the scheme, especially that they might get caught and go to prison, she did not do anything to stop her boyfriend from carrying out his plan. Several days before the robbery was to take place, Shushana’s boyfriend asked her if she would go to the coffee shop next to the bank, sit outside, and alert him if anything untoward happened outside while the robbery was taking place. Shushana agreed and did so on the day of the robbery. The robbery was interrupted in the progress and the actors were arrested and charged. Under common law rules, can Shushana be held responsible as a party to the robbery?
Choose the correct answer from below (10 points)
- No, she cannot be held liable as a party to the crime because she was not directly involved in the criminal enterprise.
- Yes, she can be held liable as a principal in the first degree
- Yes, she can be held liable as a principal in the second degree.
- Yes, she can be held responsible as an accessory before the fact.
Assume that Shushana’s boyfriend never told her of his plan to rob the bank, and Shushana did not act as a lookout, nor did she know of her boyfriend’s desire to commit such a crime. Her boyfriend and a couple of his buddies showed up at Shushana’s apartment after the robbery and asked her if they could all go over to her parents’ cabin out of town for a week or so. Shushana surprised by the request of her boyfriend asked why the hurry. Her boyfriend told her that he and his friends had just robbed a bank and they needed to get out of town and lay low for a while. Shushana laughed at them, assuming that he was joking with her. She consented and the group went to the cabin for a week. Several months later, Shushana’s boyfriend and his friends were arrested for the robbery. Under the modern approach can Shushana be found a party to the robbery? Would the result change if Shushana knew that her boyfriend robbed two banks in the past?
Explain your answer fully using court cases (15 points).
3. Yes, she can be held liable as a principal in the second degree.
Yes, Shushana can be held liable as a principal in the second degree because she actively assisted in the robbery by acting as a lookout. Even though she wasn’t inside the bank, her role directly supported the crime. In People v. Allen (Samaha, 2016, p. 424), the court established that an individual assisting in a crime, even without physically committing the act, can still be held liable. Shushana’s role as a lookout makes her an active participant rather than just a bystander. Similarly, Commonwealth v. Mitchell (Samaha, 2016, p. 459) shows that someone aiding in the commission of a crime can be held responsible as if they had committed the crime themselves.
Under the Modern Approach, intent is crucial. If Shushana truly believed her boyfriend was joking about robbing the bank, then she lacked the intent to participate. In Flores-Figueroa v. U.S. (Samaha, 2016, p. 469), the court ruled that the government had to prove the defendant knew the crime they were engaging in. Likewise, in Hamilton v. Cameron (Samaha, 2016, p. 411), a lack of sufficient evidence led to no conviction—if there was no proof that Shushana knowingly aided the robbery, she wouldn’t be held responsible.
However, if Shushana knew about her boyfriend’s past robberies and still chose to help, her liability would increase. In People v. Thomas (Samaha, 2016, p. 344), the court ruled that one doesn’t need to physically commit harm to be held responsible for the harm resulting from a crime. This concept also applies to felony murder cases, where the intent to commit the felony replaces the intent to kill. If Shushana was aware of the criminal nature of the act and assisted, she could be held accountable as more than just a lookout, potentially as an accessory or co-conspirator.
Works Cited:
Samaha, J. (2016). Criminal law (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.
