People v. Robinson
715 N.W.2d 44, 475 Mich. 1 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An accomplice who intends to aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of a crime is criminally liable for that crime as well as for any other crime that is a natural and probable consequence of the intended offense.
Facts:
- Defendant Robinson and his codefendant, Samuel Pannell, went to the house of Bernard Thomas with the stated intent to 'f*** him up.'
- At Pannell's direction, Robinson drove them to Thomas's house.
- When Thomas opened the door, Robinson initiated an attack by striking him twice.
- Pannell then joined in, kicking Thomas after he had fallen to the ground.
- Robinson told Pannell 'that was enough' and began walking back to his car.
- As Robinson reached his vehicle, he heard a single gunshot.
- Thomas died from the gunshot wound inflicted by Pannell.
Procedural Posture:
- Robinson was convicted of second-degree murder under an aiding and abetting theory after a bench trial in the trial court.
- As appellant, Robinson appealed his conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals, the state's intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, finding insufficient evidence that Robinson shared or was aware of his codefendant's intent to kill.
- The prosecution, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, the state's highest court, with Robinson as the appellee.
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 aiding and abetting an aggravated assault make a defendant criminally liable for a resulting murder committed by the principal, even if the defendant did not share or know of the principal's intent to kill, under the 'natural and probable consequences' doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Young, J.
Yes. A defendant is criminally liable not only for the offenses they specifically intend to aid, but also for those crimes that are the natural and probable consequences of the intended offense. The court reasoned that Michigan's aiding and abetting statute abolished the common-law distinctions between principals and accessories, thereby incorporating the common-law rule that an accomplice is liable for all incidental consequences that might reasonably be expected to result from the intended crime. Here, death is a natural and probable consequence of a planned aggravated assault, so Robinson is liable for the murder. Alternatively, the trial court found Robinson possessed the intent to inflict great bodily harm, which is a sufficient mens rea for a second-degree murder conviction on its own.
Dissenting - Cavanagh, J.
No. Although the 'natural and probable consequences' doctrine is valid, its application here stretches aider and abettor liability beyond defensible bounds and violates the principle of individual culpability. The trial court made specific factual findings that Robinson did not intend for or know that Pannell was going to shoot the victim, and the victim died from the gunshot, not the beating. Therefore, this specific death was not a natural and probable consequence of this specific beating that Robinson intended to aid. The majority's broad application of the doctrine improperly holds Robinson liable for a crime he did not foresee or agree to.
Dissenting - Kelly, J.
No. A defendant cannot be convicted of second-degree murder under an aiding and abetting theory without intending the act that caused the death. The majority improperly extends the aiding and abetting statute by reading the 'natural and probable consequences' doctrine into it, which is an abuse of judicial power. The trial court's factual finding that Robinson only intended to beat the victim and did not share Pannell's intent to kill must be respected. A homicide by gunshot is not a natural and probable consequence of an intended fistfight; the two acts are distinct, and criminal liability for the former requires proof of intent for that specific crime.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'natural and probable consequences' doctrine as a primary theory of accomplice liability in Michigan. It significantly lowers the mens rea requirement for accomplices in situations where a crime escalates, as prosecutors no longer need to prove the accomplice shared the principal's exact intent for the ultimate, more serious crime. This expands the scope of vicarious criminal liability, making it easier to secure convictions against all participants in a group crime for the most serious offense committed, even if some participants only intended to commit a lesser offense.
