State v. Wilson
1981 Wash. LEXIS 1135, 95 Wash. 2d 828, 631 P.2d 362 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person is an accomplice to a crime if they associate themselves with the undertaking and take an affirmative action, including verbal encouragement, intended to make the crime succeed, regardless of whether the crime would have occurred without their participation.
Facts:
- On August 27, 1979, an undercover agent, Faust, and an informant went to the appellant's home.
- In the appellant's presence, Faust asked the appellant's brother, Paul Wilson, if he could buy an ounce of marijuana.
- Paul Wilson agreed to sell the marijuana for $100.
- Agent Faust commented that the price was high.
- The appellant then told Faust that the marijuana was very good 'pot' and 'well worth the money.'
- Following the appellant's comment, Faust agreed to the price and purchased the marijuana from Paul Wilson.
- On a separate occasion, the appellant sold Faust a substance he represented as 'speed' which was actually ephedrine, a non-controlled substance.
- On a later date, officers searched the appellant's home and found 7 grams of marijuana.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant was charged in a Washington trial court with being an accomplice to the delivery of a controlled substance, among other violations.
- A jury found the appellant guilty.
- The appellant moved to dismiss the charge, arguing insufficient evidence, but the trial court denied the motions.
- The appellant appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Washington.
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 verbal encouragement to a potential buyer during a drug transaction, intended to persuade the buyer to complete the purchase, constitute aiding and abetting the delivery of a controlled substance under Washington law?
Opinions:
Majority - Rosellini, J.
Yes. A defendant's verbal encouragement constitutes aiding and abetting when it is made with knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime. The court distinguished this case from those involving mere presence or acquiescence, such as in State v. Peasley, because the appellant took an active role. His statement was not merely an opinion, as in State v. Gladstone, but was an affirmative comment calculated to induce the buyer to complete the purchase. The court held that one aids and abets when they associate themselves with the criminal undertaking, participate in it as something they desire to bring about, and seek by their action to make it succeed. The appellant's attempt to persuade the reluctant buyer demonstrated a clear intent to encourage the sale, which is sufficient for accomplice liability. The fact that the sale might have been completed without his encouragement is immaterial to the nature of his conduct.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the threshold for accomplice liability, specifically regarding verbal conduct. It establishes that words of encouragement intended to facilitate a crime are sufficient to constitute 'aiding,' moving beyond a requirement for physical assistance or pre-planning. The ruling reinforces that the key element is the defendant's intent to make the criminal venture succeed, demonstrated by an affirmative act. This precedent makes it easier for prosecutors to charge individuals who are present at a crime and actively support it verbally, even if they do not handle the contraband or money.
