Vaden v. State
768 P.2d 1102 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant can be convicted for accomplice liability even when the principal crime is committed by an undercover government agent, as the agent's potential justification defense is personal and not transferable. A due process violation for outrageous government conduct only occurs when the government engineers and directs the entire criminal enterprise from start to finish, not when it merely participates in a crime actively facilitated by the defendant.
Facts:
- Based on a tip that hunting guide Douglas Vaden used illegal methods, undercover agent John Snell contracted for Vaden's guiding services.
- During the hunt, Vaden provided Snell a shotgun and maneuvered his aircraft to allow Snell to shoot and kill four foxes from the plane.
- The hunting season for foxes was closed at the time of the killings.
- Vaden subsequently transported the illegally taken fox carcasses.
- In a separate investigation, undercover agent Thomas Pagel hired assistant guide Floyd Saltz, Jr.
- Saltz provided Pagel with illegal baited fishing gear in a fly-fishing-only area and personally killed and wasted numerous pike.
- Saltz later flew Pagel to a remote location, provided him a rifle, instructed him to shoot a bull caribou, and advised him to abandon the meat, taking only the antlers.
- Saltz also personally shot and killed a cow caribou and left its meat to waste.
Procedural Posture:
- Douglas Vaden was convicted in a state trial court, as an accomplice, for illegally taking game.
- Floyd Saltz, Jr. was convicted in a separate state trial court proceeding on numerous counts of illegal hunting and fishing, including solicitation and aiding and abetting.
- Both Vaden and Saltz filed pretrial motions to dismiss the charges based on government misconduct, which the respective trial courts denied.
- Both Vaden and Saltz, as appellants, appealed to the Alaska Court of Appeals, with the State of Alaska as the appellee.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed Vaden's convictions and largely affirmed Saltz's convictions, though it vacated some on double jeopardy grounds.
- The Alaska Supreme Court granted petitions for hearing from both Vaden and Saltz to review the common due process issues raised in their cases.
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 conviction for accomplice liability, where the principal crime was committed by an undercover government agent, violate due process when the government's participation is an essential element of the offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Compton, J.
No. The convictions do not violate due process. A defendant can be held liable as an accomplice even if the principal is a government agent, and the government's conduct here was not so outrageous as to bar prosecution. The focus for accomplice liability is on the accomplice's own state of mind, not the perpetrator's. Therefore, any justification defense available to the government agent, such as public authority, is personal to the agent and is not transferable to the accomplice. The court distinguished the defense of entrapment, which was not proven here, from a separate due process claim of outrageous government conduct. That defense applies only when government conduct is so unacceptable that it rises to a 'demonstrable level of outrageousness.' Adopting the test from the Ninth Circuit, the court held that to be outrageous, the government must have 'engineered and directed the criminal enterprise from start to finish.' Here, neither Vaden nor Saltz could meet this standard, as both were active participants and instigators in their respective crimes, not merely passive observers of a government-created scheme. Vaden controlled the plane and provided the weapon, while the jury found Saltz instigated the illegal hunting and wasting of meat.
Dissenting - Burke, J.
Yes. The convictions based on accomplice liability violate due process. The government's agents committed the principal criminal acts for the sole purpose of convicting the defendants as accomplices. The state should not be able to secure a conviction because of the illegal conduct of its own agents, especially when that conduct provides an essential element of the crime. When the agents' illegal actions are removed, the defendants' conduct, while demonstrating criminal intent, does not amount to a completed crime. This is analogous to cases like State v. Hohensee, where police conduct was deemed outrageous. The dissent also argues that the convictions should fail under the common law rule that the acts of a 'feigned accomplice' may not be imputed to the targeted defendant to establish the offense. Allowing these convictions means a defendant's ultimate criminal liability depends on the number and severity of crimes the police agent chooses to commit, which is fundamentally unjust.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction in Alaska law between the statutory defense of entrapment and the constitutional due process defense of outrageous government conduct. It establishes a very high bar for the outrageous conduct defense, limiting it to situations where the government essentially creates and controls the entire crime. The ruling reinforces the principle that an accomplice's liability is based on their own mens rea, and thus personal defenses of the principal actor (here, a government agent) cannot be transferred. This precedent grants law enforcement significant latitude in conducting undercover sting operations, particularly in regulatory contexts like fish and game enforcement.
Unlock the full brief for Vaden v. State