|
|
 Aiding & Abetting
Current Jury Instruction: [Aiding & Abetting]
Revised 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
|