|
|
|
 Aiding & Abetting
Standard Jury Instruction: An accomplice is a person
who knowingly and with criminal intent participates directly or indirectly
with another (other) person(s) in the commission of a crime. The witness
______________________________ claims to have been an accomplice of
the Defendant in the crime charged in the Indictment (Information).
The testimony of an accomplice is admissible in evidence, yet in considering
such testimony, as to matters connecting the Defendant with the commission
of the crime which are not supported by other evidence and circumstances,
you should examine such testimony with great care and caution in determining
what weight you give thereto. You may, however, find the Defendant(s)
guilty on the evidence of an accomplice standing alone and not supported
by any other evidence if you are convinced by such evidence of the Defendant(s)
guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
Proposed Jury Instruction: In order to find the defendant
guilty of [_________________], you are not required to find that [he]
[she] personally committed the crime. You may find the defendant guilty
if [he] [she] intentionally helped, or encouraged someone else to commit
the crime of [_________________]. A person who intentionally provides
help, or encourages the person who did the killing is called an aider
and abettor.
To find the defendant guilty of aiding and abetting in this case, you must be convinced that the prosecution has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt,
1) that the defendant helped, or encouraged, someone else to commit that crime,
2) and, that the defendant intended to help, or intended to encourage, someone else to commit that crime.
[Merely witnessing a crime without intervention does not make a person an aider and abettor unless [he] [she] had a duty to invervene, or [his] [her] non-interference was one of the conditions of the crime; or unless his non-interference was designed by him and operated as an encouragement to or protection of the perpetrator.]
[It is not sufficient to find the defendant was an aider and abettor simply because [he] [she] knew about the crime, or knew about the crime and was present when it was committed.]
What the prosecution must prove is that the defendant did something to help, or encourage, the crime with the intent that the crime be committed.
Relevant Cases: State v. Lola Mae C., 185 W.Va. 452, 408 S.E. 2d 31 (1991); State v. Reedy, 177 W.Va. 406, 352 S.E. 2d 153 (1986).
1. Merely witnessing a crime without intervention does not make a person a party to its commission unless his intervention was a duty, and his non-interference was one of the conditions of the crime; or unless his non-interference was designed by him and operated as an encouragement to or protection of the perpetrator. State v. Patterson, 109 W.Va. 588, 155 S.E. 661 (1930), State v. Davis, 182 W.Va. 482, 484, 388 S.E. 2d 508, 510 (1989); State v. Fortner, 182 W.Va. 345, 346, 387 S.E. 2d 812, 823 (1989); State v. Haines, 156 W.Va. 281, 192 S.E. 2d 879 (1972).
2. Actual physical presence at the scene of the criminal act is not required to be an aider and abettor. Rather constructive presence, as where one is a lookout or a guard at some convenient distance, will suffice. State v. Fortner, 182 W.Va. 345, 355, 387 S.E. 2d 812, 822 (1989); State v. Nicholson, 162 W.Va. 750, 753-754, 252 S.E. 2d 894, 896 (1979).
Home
|