People v. McGee
399 N.E.2d 1177, 424 N.Y.S.2d 157, 49 N.Y.2d 48 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In New York, a defendant's participation in a criminal conspiracy is not, by itself, a sufficient basis to hold them criminally liable for substantive offenses committed by a co-conspirator. Guilt for the substantive offense must be established through evidence of the defendant's own accessorial conduct as defined by statute, such as intentionally aiding in the commission of the crime.
Facts:
- Police Officers Luciano and D'Aprile met with defendants Quamina and Waters, who proposed a bribery arrangement.
- Quamina and Waters agreed to pay the officers to enforce gambling laws against competitors while protecting their own associates.
- The defendants provided the officers with lists of competitors to arrest and associates to protect, and Waters made several cash payments totaling $400 to the officers.
- Later, Quamina arranged an organizational meeting to bring defendants McGee, Edwards, and Tolliver into the bribery operation.
- At a meeting attended by Edwards and McGee, the group discussed police protection in exchange for a percentage of gambling receipts, and McGee indicated his agreement with the group's goals.
- Over the ensuing months, defendant Edwards made several payments to the officers.
- There was no evidence that McGee participated in or had complicity in the actual bribery payments made by his co-conspirators.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendants Quamina and Waters were convicted by a jury in a joint trial of conspiracy and bribery.
- Defendants McGee, Edwards, and Tolliver were convicted by a jury in a separate joint trial of conspiracy and bribery.
- At McGee's trial, the judge instructed the jury that McGee could be found guilty of the substantive bribery offenses based solely on his status as a conspirator.
- All five defendants appealed their convictions to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division affirmed all five judgments of conviction.
- The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, granted all five defendants leave to appeal.
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 defendant's participation in a conspiracy, without more, automatically make them criminally liable for substantive offenses committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of that conspiracy?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Cooke
No. Liability for a substantive offense may not be independently predicated upon a defendant’s participation in an underlying conspiracy. New York's Penal Law § 20.00, which defines accomplice liability, does not include mere membership in a conspiracy as a basis for criminal responsibility for the acts of another. The court explicitly rejects the federal Pinkerton rule, which equates conspiracy with accomplice liability. The crime of conspiracy is a separate offense based on the illicit agreement, whereas liability for a substantive crime requires personal participation or conduct sufficient to establish accessorial liability. It is repugnant to New York's system of jurisprudence, where guilt is generally personal, to impose punishment for substantive offenses in which a defendant did not participate.
Concurring - Judge Meyer
This opinion concurs in the result. The author writes separately to express the belief that the New York Legislature should review the state's eavesdropping laws regarding participant monitoring. While acknowledging that neither the federal nor state constitution requires a warrant for such recordings, the author highlights developments in privacy law and suggests that the Legislature should consider imposing controls, limitations on use, or even proscription of participant recordings to better protect individual privacy.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant departure from the federal doctrine established in Pinkerton v. United States, creating a distinct standard for co-conspirator liability in New York. The court's holding reinforces the principle of individual culpability by refusing to automatically impute the criminal acts of one conspirator to all others. This raises the evidentiary burden for prosecutors, who cannot rely solely on proof of a conspiracy to convict a defendant of substantive offenses; they must now prove that each defendant met the specific requirements for accomplice liability under Penal Law § 20.00 for each separate crime. This strengthens protections for defendants who may be part of a criminal agreement but do not participate in all of its subsequent criminal acts.
