Court Opinion

ID: 9633401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:45:57.985359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:34.583826
License: Public Domain

Hamilton, J.
(dissenting) — In my view the majority has stepped into the jury box and with a flourishing dissection of the evidence placed its own interpretation thereupon and, together with deftly importing the conspiratorial element of community of purpose, has substituted its verdict for that of the jury.
Before discussing the evidence adduced at the trial, I consider it appropriate to briefly review the law concerning the offense of aiding and abetting.
At common law, persons associated in some way in the commission of a crime were classified as principals and accessories. These classifications in turn were broken down into the categories of principals in the first and second degree and accessories before and after the fact. The designation of principal in the first degree was applied to the actual perpetrator of the crime, while the characterization of principal in the second degree pertained to one who was present, either actually or constructively, at the scene of the crime assisting in some fashion the principal in the first degree. The rank of accessory before the fact was attached to one who, though not present at the scene of the offense, counseled, advised, or directed commission of the crime, while one who, knowing a crime had been committed, aided or assisted the felon in escaping capture and prosecution was denominated an accessory after the fact. 2 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 81 (1961); 21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law §§ 121, 124, 126 (1965); Clark and Marshall, Crimes, §§ 8.01, 8.02, 8.03, 8.06 (7th ed. 1967); 1 R. Anderson, Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure §§ 106, 107, 110, 112 (1957); 1 W. Burdick, Law of Crime, §§ 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224 (1946).
This state, in common with many jurisdictions, legislatively abolished the common law classifications of principals in the first and second degree and accessories before *316the fact by and through the enactment of RCW 9.01.030, which provides:
Every person concerned in the commission of a felony, gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor, whether he directly commits the act constituting the offense, or aids or abets in its commission, and whether present or absent; and every person who directly or indirectly counsels, encourages, hires, commands, induces or otherwise procures another to commit a felony, gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor, is a principal, and shall be proceeded against and punished as such. The fact that the person aided, abetted, counseled, encouraged, hired, commanded, induced or procured, could not or did not entertain a criminal intent, shall not be a defense to any person aiding, abetting, counseling, encouraging, hiring, commanding, inducing or procuring him.
In the construction of this statute this court has said that each of the words of the statute, from which criminal culpability can flow, signifies the overt and affirmative doing or saying of something on the part of a person charged which directly or indirectly contributes to the commission of the primary crime. State v. Peasley, 80 Wash. 99, 141 P. 316 (1914); State v. Redden, 71 Wn.2d 147, 426 P.2d 854 (1967).
It is not necessary to sustain a charge of aiding, abetting or counseling a crime that there be proof of a conspiratorial relationship or confederacy between the actual perpetrator of the primary crime and the one charged as an aider or abettor. Criminal conspiracy, in which concert of purpose becomes a salient element, is a separate substantive offense. RCW 9.22.010. Thus, it is stated in Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 11, 98 L. Ed. 435, 74 S. Ct. 358 (1954);
Aiding, abetting, and counseling are not terms which presuppose the existence of an agreement. Those terms have a broader application, making the defendant a principal when he consciously shares in a criminal act, regardless of the existence of a conspiracy.
As is apparent from its language, our statute does not require the presence at the scene of the crime of one aiding, abetting, counseling or inducing the commission of a crime. Neither does it require a community of intent, for by the last sentence it provides that absence of criminal intent on *317the part of the person aided, abetted or induced to commit the primary offense is no defense to the aider or abettor. The statutory language and the overt action it contemplates does, however, give rise to the requirement that the aider or abettor entertain a conscious intent, i.e., knowledge and intent that his action will instigate, induce, procure or encourage perpetration of the primary crime. State v. Hinkley, 52 Wn.2d 415, 325 P.2d 889 (1958).
The question to be resolved, then, in the instant case is whether the evidence sustains the jury’s conclusion that the appellant entertained the requisite intent to render him culpable as an aider or abettor. In the resolution of this question, it is to be borne in mind that appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence requires that the evidence, and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, be interpreted in a light most favorable to the state. State v. Reynolds, 51 Wn.2d 830, 322 P.2d 356 (1958). Furthermore, this court has held that an aider’s or abettor’s culpability may be established by circumstantial evidence. State v. Pielow, 141 Wash. 302, 251 P. 586 (1926); State v. Gollihur, 159 Wash. 206, 292 P. 421 (1930).
Although the evidence in the case is conflicting, the jury was entitled to believe that on April 10, 1967, one Robert Kent sold marijuana to Douglas Thompson, who at the time was acting as an undercover agent for and in concert with officers of the Tacoma Police Department; that appellant Gladstone, Kent, and Thompson were students at the same school in Tacoma; that prior to the evening of April 10, 1967, when Thompson talked to appellant, Thompson and the Tacoma Police Department were unaware of Kent or his association with marijuana; that appellant knew Kent, whom he met and associated with on the campus of the school they respectively attended; that both appellant and Kent lived off campus; that appellant knew where Kent lived and on at least one occasion had driven him home; that at the time in question the Tacoma Police Department had information that appellant was supposed to be holding a supply of marijuana for sale; that Thompson, who was but slightly acquainted with appellant, approached appel*318lant at his residence about 10:50 p.m. on April 10, 1967, and asked appellant to sell him some marijuana; that appellant then stated that he did not have enough marijuana on hand to sell but that he knew an individual who did have an ample supply and who was willing to sell some and named the individual as Robert Kent; that upon request appellant orally gave Thompson directions to Kent’s apartment and drew a map to aid Thompson in finding the address, utilizing as a reference point a building known to appellant to be a student rendezvous where drugs had been sold; that by using the map and oral directions Thompson and the police went to Kent’s residence; that Thompson approached Kent and told him “Gladstone had sent me” whereupon Kent invited him to a room and sold him some marijuana for $30; and that Thompson and one of the police officers later returned to the Kent residence, after again visiting appellant, and made a second purchase of marijuana at which time Kent was arrested.
Based upon the foregoing circumstances and the inferences reasonably derivable therefrom, I am satisfied that the jury was fully warranted in concluding that appellant, when he affirmatively recommended Kent as a source and purveyor of marijuana, entertained the requisite conscious design and intent that his action would instigate, induce, procure or encourage perpetration of Kent’s subsequent crime of selling marijuana to Thompson. Furthermore, insofar as an element of preconcert be concerned, certainly the readiness with which the passwords, “Gladstone had sent me,” gained a stranger’s late evening entree to Kent’s domain and produced two illegal sales strongly suggests, if not conclusively establishes, the missing communal nexus which the majority belabors.
Finally, the jury, with the witnesses before it, was in a far better position to evaluate the witnesses’ candor, voice inflections, appearance, demeanor, attitude and credibility than this court viewing naught but the cold record.
I would sustain the jury’s verdict and affirm the judgment.
McGovern, J., concurs with Hamilton, J.