Skip to main content
Law

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

7
  • 11
    Intent matters for most crimes. Once Joe learned about the murder, what was his intention in continuing to drive? Was it to help Larry avoid arrest? Or was it something else (to reach his destination, to avoid being harmed by Larry, etc)? See accessory after the fact. Commented Aug 9, 2025 at 19:12
  • 4
    Almost every crime has some level of intent as an element. So if we can't assume anything about Joe's intent, then we can't reach the conclusion that he's guilty of any crime, so your question has a trivial negative answer. Unless there are strict liability offenses that could apply, which I doubt. Commented Aug 9, 2025 at 19:24
  • 4
    Also, note that this would almost certainly be a matter of state law rather than federal. If there is a particular state you want to know about, please tag. Commented Aug 9, 2025 at 20:25
  • 1
    @T.E.D. That's the case in a lot of states. The general intent is to discourage people from assisting with a crime because they could be held responsible for anything anyone else in the group does, even if it was outside the original plan. In practice, it seems to me that it's often misused to apply extreme punishments to people who were barely involved. Commented Aug 11, 2025 at 16:13
  • 1
    Also probably get a charge for aidin' and a'bettin', of course. Commented Aug 11, 2025 at 17:46