Commonwealth v. Huber
15 Pa. D. & C.2d 726 (1958)
Rule of Law:
To effectively withdraw from criminal liability as an accessory before the fact, an individual who has provided aid must neutralize their assistance before the crime is committed. This can be achieved by reclaiming the instrumentality provided or by notifying law enforcement in time to thwart the crime; a mere verbal refusal to participate is insufficient.
Facts:
- John Goodwin asked to borrow the defendant's rifle.
- When the defendant asked why, Goodwin stated, 'I am going to rob somebody.'
- The defendant gave Goodwin the rifle and a naptha-type fluid.
- Goodwin then invited the defendant to participate in the robbery.
- The defendant refused to join, stating, 'No, I ain’t going to get involved in anything like that.'
- Goodwin and his associates subsequently committed the robbery using the defendant's rifle.
- After the robbery occurred, the defendant learned of it at a police station and immediately went to Goodwin's home to retrieve his rifle.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was indicted by the Commonwealth on charges of being an accessory before the fact and an accessory after the fact to robbery.
- The defendant was tried in a court of first instance before a judge sitting without a jury (a bench trial).
- The trial judge found the defendant guilty of being an accessory before the fact.
- The defendant then filed post-trial motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, which are now before the court for disposition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual's verbal refusal to personally participate in a planned robbery constitute a legally effective withdrawal from criminal liability as an accessory before the fact, if that individual has already provided a weapon for the crime and taken no further steps to prevent it?
Opinions:
Majority - Groshens, J.
No. A defendant's mere refusal to participate in a robbery does not constitute a legally effective withdrawal when he has already provided an instrument for the crime's commission. The act of supplying the rifle constituted 'aid' under the law, making the defendant an accessory before the fact. To withdraw from this position, the defendant was required to take affirmative steps to undo his aid. He could have accomplished this by demanding and receiving his rifle back before the robbery occurred or by reporting the plan to the police in time to thwart the crime. Because the defendant did neither, his initial assistance remained operative, and his refusal to join the principals was legally insufficient to sever his liability.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the affirmative defense of withdrawal for accomplice liability, establishing that it requires more than a passive or verbal renunciation of the criminal enterprise. The decision sets a precedent that an accomplice who provides material assistance has an affirmative duty to neutralize that assistance to escape culpability. This raises the bar for defendants claiming withdrawal, requiring them to demonstrate concrete actions to prevent the crime they helped set in motion, thereby strengthening the legal concept of shared responsibility among all contributors to a crime.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Commonwealth v. Huber (1958)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"