A. A professor at ODU frustrated that ODU has decided for the 7th year not to give professors a pay raise and being so much behind with her mortgage payment walks up to Bank of America and robs the teller of $150,000. By the time the police know who the robber is, she has fled the country, and no one knows her whereabouts. The Bank turns to ODU and sues the university. ODU counts on you as students of criminal law to come to its defense. Explain how you will approach this. Some of you sympathize with the bank. If the bank also turns to you for legal help what would you tell the bank? (7 points).
B. Peter and Wendy were talking at a neighborhood barbecue, and Peter began discussing his marital problems. Wendy commented that Peter would be better off without his wife, and that if his wife were out of the picture, perhaps Wendy and Peter could get together. It appeared that Peter took this comment seriously, mentioning to Wendy later that night some possible methods of eliminating his wife. After several weeks, Peter’s behavior grew increasingly odd and he talked about the earlier conversation at the party several times. Wendy grew concerned that he was giving genuine consideration to killing his wife. Wendy approached him to tell him she was only joking at the party, but Peter brushed off her concerns. Several days later, Peter attempted to kill his wife. Is Wendy guilty of Solicitation?
Please discuss your response exhaustively, explaining the law relating to Solicitation, and if you think Peter is not guilty of solicitation, explain why. (18 points)
A. Can ODU Be Held Liable for the Bank Robbery?
ODU cannot be held liable for the professor’s independent criminal actions. Respondeat superior imposes liability only for employees’ actions performed within the scope of their employment. Since the professor’s robbery was a personal, criminal act unrelated to her job duties, ODU is not liable.
The court in State v. Zeta Chi Fraternity held that an organization is not responsible for an individual’s criminal actions when those actions are unrelated to the individual’s professional duties (Samaha, 2017, p. 260). In this case, the professor’s robbery was driven by personal frustration over salary issues, not by any ties associated with her employment at ODU. Therefore, it falls outside the scope of the professor’s job. Similarly, in other cases, courts have held that an employer is not liable for an employee’s criminal acts unless the criminal acts are committed during working hours or as part of the employee’s duties. The professor’s robbery took place outside of work and was completely unrelated to her role as a professor; ODU bears no responsibility for the crime.
If Bank of America turns to me for legal help, I would advise them that they would likely need to pursue legal action directly against the professor for the criminal act of robbery. Given that the professor fled the country, it would be necessary to pursue her in absentia or use international legal channels for extradition. However, the university cannot be held liable based on the principles of vicarious liability, which only applies to actions within the scope of employment.
B. Is Wendy Guilty of Solicitation?
No, Wendy cannot be held guilty of solicitation. For solicitation to occur, there must be a specific intent to encourage or persuade someone to commit a crime (Samaha, 2016, p. 411). Although Wendy made a comment that could be taken as a suggestion to Peter about his wife being “out of the picture,” the words she used were said in jest, and there was no intent to persuade or encourage Peter to murder his wife.
In Espinoza v. State, the court held that for solicitation to be established, the defendant’s actions must show a clear intent to incite or persuade another to commit a crime. In that case, the defendant’s actions were deemed insufficient to constitute solicitation because they lacked the necessary intent to actively encourage criminal conduct (Samaha, 2016, p. 411). In the same manner, Wendy’s comment, although inappropriate, was not an attempt to ask Peter to kill his wife. Furthermore, Wendy made an effort to undo what she said and clarified that she was just joking when she saw that Peter was taking her words seriously. This shows that Wendy did not want to incite or encourage any criminal action, which aligns with the reasoning in Espinoza v. State, where the defendant did not take further steps to encourage the crime after making an ambiguous remark.
In People v. Allen, the court stated that for solicitation, the individual must demonstrate the intention to actively influence the perpetration of the crime (Samaha, 2016, p. 424). Wendy did not act with such intent; she was not actively trying to make Peter take any action. She tried to explain herself when she understood that Peter was taking her words literally. Hence, although Wendy’s comment was inappropriate, it does not meet the legal standard for solicitation since it did not demonstrate the intent to encourage a crime. She was not trying to encourage any illegal actions in any way and instead tried to retract her statement.
Works Cited:
Samaha, J. (2016). Criminal law (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.
