In Re the Welfare of Wilson
588 P.2d 1161, 1979 Wash. LEXIS 1167, 91 Wash. 2d 487 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To be convicted as an accomplice, a person must do more than simply be present at the scene of a crime with knowledge of the ongoing criminal activity. The State must prove the person associated themselves with the undertaking and took some action with the intent to make the venture succeed.
Facts:
- On the evening of August 29, 1976, a group of youths, including petitioner Ronald E. Wilson, gathered near an office building and an adjacent golf course.
- Some youths in the group pulled weatherstripping from the office building's windows and fashioned it into a rope.
- The youths tied the weatherstripping rope to a tree and strung it across a road to a fairway on the golf course.
- On at least two occasions, members of the group pulled the rope taut across the road as cars approached, dropping it before the cars reached it.
- Wilson was present on a hill with the group and was aware of their activities.
- An eyewitness saw Wilson, identified by his red hunting jacket, standing near the end of the rope on the fairway, but did not see him touch or pull the rope or verbally encourage the others.
Procedural Posture:
- The State filed a petition in juvenile court alleging Ronald E. Wilson committed reckless endangerment as an accomplice (aider and abettor).
- The juvenile court (trial court) found Wilson guilty of aiding and abetting.
- Wilson appealed the conviction to the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's finding of guilt.
- Wilson (the petitioner) successfully petitioned for review by the Supreme Court of Washington (highest court).
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 a juvenile's continued presence at the scene of a crime, with knowledge of the criminal activity but without any affirmative act of participation, constitute sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for aiding and abetting that crime under RCW 9A.08.020?
Opinions:
Majority - Hicks, J.
No. A person's mere presence at the scene of a crime, even with knowledge of the ongoing criminal activity, is insufficient to support a conviction for aiding and abetting. The court reasoned that Washington's accomplice liability statute requires that a person knowingly 'solicits, commands, encourages, or requests' the commission of a crime or aids in its commission. Citing long-standing precedent, the court affirmed that physical presence and assent alone are not enough. To be an accomplice, one must associate with the undertaking, participate in it as something they desire to bring about, and take action to make it succeed. The court explicitly rejected the lower court's broad rule that continued presence could be reasonably inferred as 'encouragement.' Instead, liability requires 'encouragement plus the intent of the bystander to encourage,' which was not proven in Wilson's case.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the mens rea (mental state) required for accomplice liability, establishing that mere passive acquiescence or presence is not enough to convict someone of aiding and abetting. The court reinforces the distinction between a bystander and a participant, requiring the prosecution to prove an affirmative intent to further the crime. This precedent is crucial for preventing convictions based solely on association or being in the 'wrong place at the wrong time,' thus protecting individuals who are merely present at a crime scene without any culpable involvement.
