State v. Peterson
4 N.W.2d 826 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who has encouraged, planned, or commanded another to commit a crime can avoid criminal responsibility by withdrawing from the plan and effectively communicating this withdrawal to the accomplice before the crime is committed.
Facts:
- The defendant and August Anderson had a long-standing close relationship, and the state alleged they planned to burn down the defendant's house for insurance money.
- On October 28, 1940, the defendant was injured in a car accident and hospitalized.
- While the defendant was in the hospital, Anderson went to her house at Lake Minnetonka.
- On October 30, before the fire was set, the defendant sent a third party, Victor Carlson, to the house on two separate occasions to retrieve Anderson and bring him to the hospital.
- On the second trip, Carlson found Anderson and told him the defendant wanted him to come to the hospital 'quick,' but Anderson refused to leave with Carlson.
- After Carlson left, Anderson set seven separate fires in the house.
- Anderson then went to the hospital and informed the defendant he had 'started the fires.'
- Upon hearing this, the defendant told Anderson she did not want her house burned and directed him to return immediately to extinguish the fires, but he arrived too late.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Minnesota charged the defendant with arson in the second degree.
- Following a trial in a court of first instance, a jury convicted the defendant.
- The defendant appealed her conviction to the Minnesota Supreme 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 defendant avoid criminal liability for arson when, after allegedly planning the crime with an accomplice, she makes a timely and unequivocal effort to stop the accomplice from setting the fire and to communicate her withdrawal from the plan before the crime is committed?
Opinions:
Majority - Peterson, Justice
Yes. A defendant avoids criminal liability for a crime procured by her if she withdraws from the plan and communicates that withdrawal to her accomplice before the act is done. The court reasoned that one who joins an unlawful scheme must perform an affirmative act to disavow or defeat its purpose in order to withdraw. Here, the defendant took the most effective measures within her power to arrest the execution of the plan by sending Victor Carlson to retrieve Anderson before he set the fire. This action constituted a timely and unmistakable communication to Anderson that she no longer wanted him to burn the house. By withdrawing before the crime was committed, the defendant avoided criminal responsibility, leaving Anderson solely responsible for the arson.
Analysis:
This case establishes a clear standard for the affirmative defense of withdrawal in accomplice liability cases. The decision clarifies that mere a change of heart is insufficient; a defendant must take an 'affirmative action' to disavow the criminal purpose. Furthermore, this withdrawal must be effectively communicated to the principal actor before the substantive crime is committed. This ruling provides a crucial precedent distinguishing liability for conspiracy from liability for the completed crime, affirming that a party can abandon a criminal enterprise and escape liability for the ultimate offense if their withdrawal is timely and clear.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Peterson