Exam 7: Parties to Crime and Vicarious Liability

liability is less blameworthy than participation in the crime itself.​

Which of the following is less blameworthy than participation in a crime itself?​

Jorge gave Annette a ride in his car. They stopped at Jorge’s mother’s house to pick up some beer. They met Jorge’s brother, Juan, at his mother’s house and he joined them. Jorge said he wanted to have sex with Annette. Juan said he wanted to pick up his ex-girlfriend, Janette. Jorge drives the car to Janette’s and she comes out of the house. Juan and Janette begin to argue and Juan stabs Janette with a knife, killing her. Jorge drives to a lake with Annette, Juan, and Janette’s body where he helps Juan throw the body in the lake. -What issue(s)would the court need to address in trying Jorge?​

Define accomplice actus reus and explain why mere presence or inaction isn't enough accomplish accomplice actus reus.​

George spent most of the afternoon playing cards with Chuck. A man carrying cash walked by and Chuck pulled a knife and robbed the man with the cash. Both George and Chuck fled the scene. George was caught; Chuck never was. -​George is unlikely to be charged with a crime because flight from the scene of a crime is not enough to prove

In what ways do traditional parental responsibility statutes differ from vicarious liability? Why do we have vicarious liability statutes? Which do you think functions better: parental responsibility statutes or vicarious liability? Provide an example to support your argument.​

Which of the following cases involves being an accessory-after-the-fact?​

Which of the following old common law terms do modern statutes often borrow to define accomplice actus reus?​

At common law,there were four parties to crime: principals in the first degree,second degree,and accessories before and after the fact.​

_______________ establishes when you can be criminally liable for someone else's conduct.​

Tammy and Jenny are having coffee in Tammy’s kitchen. Jenny uses an electrical cord to beat Tammy’s one-year-old daughter for several hours repeatedly until she is bleeding. Tammy looks on but does nothing. -Tammy is guilty of the crime because of what exception to the mere presence rule?​

What type of liability establishes when a party can be criminally liable because of a relationship?​

The issue in most vicarious liability cases is interpreting whether the statute actually imposes vicarious liability.​

Today,accessory-after-the-fact offenders are punished as severely as the offender who committed the crime.​

Forfeited personal identity theory assumes that we're autonomous agents with the freedom to choose our actions.​

Even in situations where the defendant has a legal duty to act,his or her mere presence at the scene of a crime is not enough to amount to accomplice actus reus.​

Flight from the scene of a crime is enough evidence to convict a person of a crime or of being an accomplice.​

Traditional parent statutes aren't the same as vicarious liability.​

Complicity applies criminal liability to accomplices and accessories because they participate in crimes.​

The case of Pinkerton v.U.S.(1946)deals with what rule?​