People v. Poplar
1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 800, 173 N.W.2d 732, 20 Mich. App. 132 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An aider and abettor to a crime may be held criminally responsible for a second, more serious crime committed by a principal if the second crime was a foreseeable consequence and fairly within the scope of the common unlawful enterprise, which may be inferred from the aider and abettor's knowledge of attendant circumstances, such as the presence of a weapon.
Facts:
- The defendant, Poplar, met with Alfred Williams and Clifford Lorrick in a bar.
- The group drove around, picked up tools, and made an unsuccessful attempt to enter a bowling alley.
- During this time, a shotgun that was in the car accidentally discharged, making the defendant aware of its presence.
- Williams and Lorrick then broke into the Oak Park recreation building.
- The defendant allegedly acted as a lookout from a house directly across the street.
- When the building's manager discovered Williams and Lorrick inside, Williams shot the manager in the face with the shotgun.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in trial court as an aider and abettor with breaking and entering and assault with intent to commit murder.
- At trial, the defendant's motion for a change of venue was denied.
- The defendant's motion for a directed verdict on both charges was also denied by the trial court.
- A jury found the defendant guilty on both counts.
- The defendant appealed his convictions to the Michigan Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motions.
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 aider and abettor to a burglary possess the requisite specific intent for assault with intent to murder when a co-perpetrator shoots someone during the crime, if the aider and abettor was aware of the presence of a weapon?
Opinions:
Majority - J. H. Gillis, P. J.
Yes. An aider and abettor may be found guilty of a specific intent crime committed by a principal if the crime was fairly within the scope of the common unlawful enterprise. The court reasoned that an aider and abettor's criminal intent can be inferred from his actions and his knowledge of the principal's wrongful purpose. While there was no direct evidence that the defendant intended to commit murder, his knowledge that a shotgun was present in the car during the planning and execution of the burglary was sufficient circumstantial evidence. From this knowledge, a jury could reasonably infer that the defendant was aware his companions might use the gun if discovered, making the assault a foreseeable consequence of the initial crime. Therefore, the assault was fairly within the scope of the common enterprise, rendering the defendant criminally responsible.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of accomplice liability for crimes that go beyond the initial common plan. It establishes that foreseeability is the key to determining an accomplice's culpability for a subsequent specific-intent crime. The decision emphasizes that a jury can use circumstantial evidence, particularly an accomplice's knowledge of a weapon, to infer that they were aware of and accepted the risk of violence. This precedent makes it easier for prosecutors to convict lookouts, getaway drivers, and other accomplices for violent acts committed by their partners, even without direct evidence of a shared intent to commit the violent act itself.
