Opinion ID: 2550126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Coconspirator liability

Text: Our conclusion that there is sufficient evidentiary and legal support for Bolden's conviction of the charged crimes as a principal and as an aider and abettor does not end our inquiry. Bolden's sufficiency argument, coupled with his reliance on this court's holding in Sharma, calls into question the legal viability of the State's remaining theory of vicarious coconspirator liability. As noted above, if any one of the theories of criminal liability alleged by the State is legally erroneous, reversal of a verdict that fails to specify the precise theory upon which the verdict is based is generally required regardless of the legal and factual sufficiency of the other theories. Despite our conclusion that Bolden's conviction of the nonconspiracy crimes is legally and factually sufficient under the State's theories of principal and aiding and abetting liability, we must now determine whether there is a valid legal and factual basis supporting Bolden's conviction of the nonconspiracy crimes under the State's theory of vicarious coconspirator liability. In this respect, the district court gave the following instruction: Each member of a criminal conspiracy is liable for each act and bound by each declaration of every other member of the conspiracy if the act or the declaration is in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy. The act of one conspirator pursuant to or in furtherance of the common design of the conspiracy is the act of all conspirators. Every conspirator is legally responsible for an act of a co-conspirator that follows as one of the probable and natural consequences of the object of the conspiracy even if that was not intended as part of the original plan and even if he was not present at the time of commission of such act. (Emphasis added.) In Garner v. State , this court approved the above-quoted probable and natural consequences doctrine, which exposes conspirators to criminal liability for any act so long as the act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy as a natural or probable consequence of the unlawful agreement. [18] However, Garner restricted the doctrine considerably by holding that [t]his rule does not constitute a per se basis for holding an accomplice to one crime liable for a related crime by the principal simply because the related crime was foreseeable. [19] To do so, we concluded, would be `to base criminal liability only on a showing of negligence rather than criminal intent.' [20] Consequently, Garner concluded that if the relationship between the defendant's acts and the charged crime is too attenuated, the State must provide `some showing of specific intent to aid in, or specific knowledge of, the crime charged.' [21] Garner, however, did not discuss vicarious coconspirator and accomplice liability as discrete concepts. As previously noted, in Sharma v. State , this court overruled Garner to the extent that a defendant could be held accountable for the specific intent crime of another, under an aiding or abetting theory of liability, without proof that he specifically intended to aid the other in the commission of the charged crime. [22] We stated, [The natural and probable consequences] doctrine has been harshly criticized by most commentators ... as both incongruous and unjust because it imposes accomplice liability solely upon proof of foreseeability or negligence when typically a higher degree of mens rea is required of the principal. It permits criminal liability to be predicated upon negligence even when the crime involved requires a different state of mind. Having reevaluated the wisdom of the doctrine, we have concluded that its general application in Nevada to specific intent crimes is unsound precisely for that reason: it permits conviction without proof that the accused possessed the state of mind required by the statutory definition of the crime. ... As the Supreme Court of New Mexico observed in rejecting the doctrine for similar reasons, the doctrine thus allows a defendant to be convicted for crimes the defendant may have been able to foresee but never intended. ... Because the natural and probable consequences doctrine permits a defendant to be convicted of a specific intent crime where he or she did not possess the statutory intent required for the offense, we hereby disavow and abandon the doctrine. It is not only inconsistent with more fundamental principles of our system of criminal law, but is also inconsistent with those Nevada statutes that require proof of a specific intent to commit the crime alleged. .... Accordingly, we ... hold that in order for a person to be held accountable for the specific intent crime of another under an aiding or abetting theory of principal liability, the aider or abettor must have knowingly aided the other person with the intent that the other person commit the charged crime. [23] Thus, Sharma addressed the natural and probable consequences doctrine only with respect to a theory alleging that a defendant could be held criminally liable for the specific intent crime of another under an aiding and abetting theory of principal liability. The question left unanswered in Garner and Sharma, but presented in this case, is whether a theory of vicarious coconspirator liability based upon the natural and probable consequences doctrine is a legally viable theory in this state. Nearly 60 years ago in Pinkerton v. United States, the United States Supreme Court defined coconspirator liability in terms of reasonable foreseeability and reaffirmed the concept that a conspiracy and the completion of the substantive offense are two distinct criminal acts. [24] The Court concluded, The criminal intent to do the act is established by the formation of the conspiracy. Each conspirator instigated the commission of the crime. The unlawful agreement contemplated precisely what was done. It was formed for the purpose. The act done was in execution of the enterprise. The rule which holds responsible one who counsels, procures, or commands another to commit a crime is founded on the same principle. That principle is recognized in the law of conspiracy when the overt act of one partner in crime is attributable to all.... If [the overt act] can be supplied by the act of one conspirator, we fail to see why the same or other acts in furtherance of the conspiracy are likewise not attributable to the others for the purpose of holding them responsible for the substantive offense. A different case would arise if the substantive offense committed by one of the conspirators was not in fact done in furtherance of the conspiracy, did not fall within the scope of the unlawful project, or was merely a part of the ramifications of the plan which could not be reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement. [25] Pinkerton applies to federal criminal proceedings and thus federal courts have employed the rule. [26] The individual states, however, are not obligated to follow Pinkerton. The Nevada Legislature has not adopted the Pinkerton rule, but a number of states have addressed the issue by judicial decision. Several states have embraced the rule and permit defendants to be held liable for the criminal acts of a coconspirator so long as the crime was foreseeable and committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. [27] Nonetheless, the Pinkerton rule has garnered significant disfavor. Concerns respecting the ramifications of the rule arose shortly after the opinion issued: In the final analysis the Pinkerton decision extends the wide limits of the conspiracy doctrine to the breaking-point and opens the door to possible new abuses by over-zealous public prosecutors. While membership in a conspiracy may well be evidence for the jury's consideration in holding others than the direct actor guilty, it should not be sufficient, in the absence of some further showing of knowledge, acquiescence, aid or assistance, to convict one conspirator for another's criminal act. [28] Others have criticized the rule as well. Under the better view, one is not an accomplice to a crime merely because that crime was committed in furtherance of a conspiracy of which he is a member, or because that crime was a natural and probable consequence of another offense as to which he is an accomplice. [29] The drafters of the Model Penal Code have similarly rejected the Pinkerton view, commenting that the law would lose all sense of just proportion if by virtue of his crime of conspiracy a defendant was held accountable for thousands of additional offenses of which he was completely unaware and which he did not influence at all. [30] The Washington Supreme Court has rejected Pinkerton as an inaccurate reflection of state law. [31] A Washington criminal statute provides liability for criminal conspiracy but is silent respecting vicarious liability for coconspirators. The Washington court concluded that vicarious liability of coconspirators, if any, must be based on a state accomplice liability statute, which requires knowledge of the crime charged. [32] Therefore, the court held that liability based on foreseeability alone is incompatible with its state law. The Arizona Supreme Court has also rejected the Pinkerton rule, holding that conspiratorial liability does not extend to separate criminal acts of coconspirators when a particular coconspirator is not an accomplice or principal to those crimes, even though he may be guilty of conspiracy. [33] That court noted that its holding simply prevents a conspirator, who is not also an accomplice, from being held liable for a potentially limitless number of criminal acts which, though later determined to be `foreseeable,' are at the time of their commission totally beyond the conspirator's knowledge and control. [34] New York has similarly considered and rejected the Pinkerton view, as explained in People v. McGee : In rejecting the notion that one's status as a conspirator standing alone is sufficient to support a conviction for a substantive offense committed by a coconspirator, it is noted that the Legislature has defined the conduct that will render a person criminally responsible for the act of another. Conspicuously absent from section 20.00 of the Penal Law is reference to one who conspires to commit an offense. That omission cannot be supplied by construction. Conduct that will support a conviction for conspiracy will not perforce give rise to accessorial liability. True, a conspirator's conduct in many instances will suffice to establish liability as an accomplice, but the concepts are, in reality, analytically distinct. To permit mere guilt of conspiracy to establish the defendant's guilt of the substantive crime without any evidence of further action on the part of the defendant, would be to expand the basis of accomplice liability beyond the legislative design. The crime of conspiracy is an offense separate from the crime that is the object of the conspiracy. Once an illicit agreement is shown, the overt act of any conspirator may be attributed to other conspirators to establish the offense of conspiracy and that act may be the object crime. But the overt act itself is not the crime in a conspiracy prosecution; it is merely an element of the crime that has as its basis the agreement. It is not offensive to permit a conviction of conspiracy to stand on the overt act committed by another, for the act merely provides corroboration of the existence of the agreement and indicates that the agreement has reached a point where it poses a sufficient threat to society to impose sanctions. But it is repugnant to our system of jurisprudence, where guilt is generally personal to the defendant, to impose punishment, not for the socially harmful agreement to which the defendant is a party, but for substantive offenses in which he did not participate. [35]