7

This is inspired by the movie "My Cousin Vinny." Consider the following hypothetical situation:

  • Two 18-year-old people, Joe and Larry, set out on a drive to California, with Joe driving them in Joe's car.
  • On the journey, they stop at a convenience store to buy food.
  • Both enter the convenience store.
  • Joe buys something and leaves the store.
  • Larry shoots the cashier.
  • Larry leave the store and gets into the car with Joe.
  • Joe is unaware of the murder.
  • They drive away.
  • Later, Larry confesses to Joe about the murder, and Joe believes Larry.
  • Joe continues to drive.

On the above facts, assuming nothing more than is expressly stated: did Joe commit a crime and if so, what?

Improve this question
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

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
13

The potential offence: being an accessory after the fact to murder

See section 23 of the Criminal Code:

An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing that a person has been a party to the offence, receives, comforts or assists that person for the purpose of enabling that person to escape.

This is an independent offence and does not make the person a "party" to the predicate offence. Someone who is an accessory after the fact to the offence of murder may receive a sentence of up to fourteen years. See s. 463:

every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an indictable offence for which, on conviction, an accused is liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years

The elements of the offence

To be an accessory after the fact requires that the accused accessory:

  • know that the person they're assisting was a party to an offence, AND
  • offer such assistance "for the purpose of enabling that person to escape."

It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that the accused accessory enabled escape.

The prosecution must prove that the accused accessory's actions were for the specific purpose of enabling escape. See R. v. Camponi, 1993 CanLII 1163 (BCCA):

there is a free standing fault element which is the ulterior intention or desire (purpose) that the person assisted "escape" as a consequence of the conduct alleged.

It is a question for the jury as to whether the accused accessory had the required purpose: R. v. McVay, 1982 CanLII 3684 (ONCA).

Here are some sample jury instructions on the purpose element of accessory-after-the-fact (R. v. Dagenais, 2018 ONCA 63, para. 38; these instructions were held to be deficient in the circumstances, but only because they referred to an individual as principal that did not match the Crown's theory of the accessory's guilt — the substance of the "purpose" instruction is correct):

What is important here is [the accused accessory's] purpose, not the effect of what she did. Crown counsel must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [the accused accessory] did what she did for the purpose of helping [the principal] escape. Whether her conduct actually did help [the principal] escape may help you decide what [the accused accessory's] purpose was in giving assistance, but Crown counsel does not have to prove that what [the accused accessory] did actually achieved that purpose.

To determine [the accused accessory's] state of mind, her purpose in providing assistance to [the principal] you should consider:

  • What she did or did not do
  • How she did or did not do it; and
  • What she said or did not say about it.

All these things, and the circumstances in which they happened, may help you decide whether [the accused accessory's] purpose in providing assistance to [the principal] was to enable him to escape. Use your good common sense.

Application to the hypothetical

Given that there is no asserted purpose in the hypothetical, we do not know whether Joe has committed an offence.

Whether an offence can be proved is a different question than whether certain facts make out the offence.

Regarding how to prove intent, see: How do you prove a fact at issue in litigation?

Improve this answer
0

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.