CRIMINAL LIABILITY AS A PRINCIPAL RESULTS. MERE INACTIVE PRESENCE AT THE
SCENE OF THE CRIME DOES NOT ESTABLISH GUILT AS A PRINCIPAL.
QUESTION: WHAT ARE EXAMPLES OF AN AIDER AND ABETTER AT THE SCENE?
ANSWER: A GETAWAY DRIVER OR LOOK-OUT. IN ORDER TO SECURE A CONVICTION
FOR AIDING AND ABETTING, THE EVIDENCE MUST SHOW SOME AFFIRMATIVE
PARTICIPATION WHICH AT LEAST ENCOURAGED THE PERPETRATOR TO COMMIT THE
OFFENSE, OR THAT THERE BE EVIDENCE OF A CONCERT OF PURPOSE OR THE AIDING
OR ENCOURAGING OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIMINAL ACT AND A CONSCIOUS
SHARING OF THE CRIMINAL INTENT. U.S. V. EPPS, 20 MJ 504 (ACMR 1985).
QUESTION: WHAT PURPOSE IS SERVED BY HAVING THE THEORY OF PRINCIPALS?
ANSWER: ITS PURPOSE IS TO MAKE CLEAR THAT A PERSON DOES NOT HAVE TO
PERSONALLY COMMIT THE ACTS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE IN ORDER
TO BE GUILTY OF IT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE LAW OF PRINCIPALS PUTS IN PLACE A
MECHANISM TO DISCOURAGE THOSE WHO INSTIGATE CRIME AND EXPECT TO ESCAPE
CRIMINAL LIABILITY SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE DID THE CRIMINAL ACT.
QUESTION: IS SOMEONE CHARGED WITH A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 77?
ANSWER: NO. A PRINCIPAL IN A LARCENY, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD NOT BE CHARGED
WITH A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 77; RATHER, HE WOULD BE CHARGED WITH A
VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 121 (LARCENY) JUST AS THE ACTUAL PERPETRATOR.
QUESTION: WHAT TYPES OF PEOPLE QUALIFY AS PRINCIPALS?
ANSWER: INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD BE HELD LIABLE AS PRINCIPALS INCLUDE THE
PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME. A PERPETRATOR IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO ACTUALLY
COMMITS THE OFFENSE. A PERSON IS ALSO LIABLE AS A PRINCIPAL IF HE AIDS, ABETS,
COUNSELS, COMMANDS, OR PROCURES SOMEONE ELSE TO COMMIT THE CRIME. THUS,
THE PERSON WHO ENCOURAGES ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL TO HIT A THIRD PERSON IS
GUILTY OF THE ASSAULT, IF IT IS CARRIED OUT AS THE RESULT OF HIS URGING.
3. Criminal Liability of the Principal. Once guilt as a principal is established, a principal is
liable not only for the offenses that he helped to commit, but he is also liable for any offense which any
other principal commits which is a natural and probable consequence of the original intended offense.
QUESTION: IF AN INDIVIDUAL ACTIVELY ASSISTS IN AN ARMED ROBBERY OR
BURGLARY, AND THE VICTIM IS KILLED BY ONE OF THE ACCUSED'S CO-
CONSPIRATORS, CAN THE ACCUSED BE CONVICTED OF MURDER ON A PRINCIPAL
THEORY EVEN IF HE HAD NO INTENT TO KILL OR TO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN A
HOMICIDE?
ANSWER: YES. SUCH CRIMES BY THEIR VERY NATURE ARE LIKELY TO LEAD TO
MURDER. MCM 1984, ARTICLE 77, PARA b(5).
MP1019
1-46
Previous Page
