Colorado Law Concerning Accomplices and Complicity

JurisdictionColorado,United States
CitationVol. 18 No. 12 Pg. 2317
Pages2317
Publication year1989
18 Colo.Law. 2317
Colorado Lawyer
1989.

1989, December, Pg. 2317. Colorado Law Concerning Accomplices and Complicity




2317


Vol. 18, No. 12, Pg. 2317

Colorado Law Concerning Accomplices and Complicity

by Marianne Wesson

© 1989 Harrison Publishing Co

Criminal law always has recognized that persons who do not actually engage in the conduct necessary to the commission of a crime may nevertheless incur some criminal liability if they contribute in certain ways to the planning, encouragement or execution of the crime.(fn1) Hence, the hiring party as well as the contract killer may be guilty of murder; the getaway driver as well as the robber may be guilty of robbery; and the fence as well as the thief may be guilty of theft.(fn2) Colorado provides that the guilt of the party who does not actually commit the crime is equal to that of the party who does, provided the former's contribution to the crime satisfies the principles of accomplice liability.(fn3)

The law of accomplice liability also is known as the law of complicity or of accountability. Because an individual convicted as an accessory faces precisely the same punishment as one convicted of the same crime as a principal,(fn4) it is imperative that Colorado attorneys understand the law of accomplice liability.


Statutory Background

CRS § 18-1-602(1) provides

(1) A person is legally accountable for the behavior of another if:

(a) He is made accountable for the conduct of that person by the statute defining the offense or by specific provision of this code; or

(b) He acts with the culpable mental state sufficient for the commission of the offense in question and he causes an innocent person to engage in such behavior.


The second method [in (1)(b)] of establishing vicarious liability for the conduct of another is seldom invoked.(fn5) It is more common for cases of alleged accomplice liability to fall within subsection (1)(a), according to which the accused accomplice "is made accountable for the conduct of [the actor] by the statute defining the offense or by specific provision of [the Colorado Criminal Code]." Further, in practically every reported case, the source of the defendant's accountability is not the statute defining the offense, but rather "specific provisions" of CRS § 18-1-603:

A person is legally accountable as principal for the behavior of another constituting a criminal offense if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense, he aids, abets, or advises the other person in planning or committing the offense.

This apparently simple language conceals some uncertainty about exactly what is required for accomplice liability under its provisions. Employing the usual dichotomy of acts and mental states, questions might be asked about (1) the conduct necessary to convict an individual as an accomplice and (2) the mental state or states necessary for such a conviction.


The "Act" of Complicity

CRS § 18-1-603's designation of "aiding, abetting, or advising" as the possible varieties of complicitous acts by no means eliminates the uncertainties of the matter of conduct. It has been held that the term "abets" encompasses encouragement.(fn6) Thus, in Colorado, an individual who sells a would-be criminal an instrumentality that is necessary or useful to the commission of the crime may well have committed an act of complicity.

In a case that predates the present statute but appears to reflect the Colorado view of complicity, the Colorado Supreme Court held that an innkeeper who rented rooms to prostitutes could




2318



be guilty of keeping and maintaining a house of ill-fame According to the court, such conduct constituted "aiding, abetting, and assisting" such an enterprise.(fn7) If this case is still good law, it is difficult to distinguish the tolerant innkeeper from an individual who sells a firearm to a bank robber or sells a can of gasoline to an arsonist.

Distinctions may be made between various cases of aid by considering differences between the mental states of the various aiders. This consideration, however, requires an understanding of what mental state or states are necessary to the commission of a crime as an accomplice.


The "Mens Rea Of Complicity

CRS § 18-1-603 designates the mental state necessary for accomplice liability as "intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense." As it has been interpreted in Colorado, this language is somewhat ambiguous. It seems at a minimum that an individual could not be guilty of an offense as an accomplice unless he or...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT