The difference of who we consider ourselves friends with should be closely guarded because according to the law, we are legally responsible/accountable when “either before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate such commission, he solicits, aids, abets, agrees or attempts to aid such other person in the planning commission of the offense.” (720 ILCS 5/5-2(c))
This law places no duty on citizens to call the police and report the crime, however, courts consider the fact that the law was not notified, they consider that as well as your presence at the scene of the crime without dissociation from the crime, acting as a lookout, flight from the scene, continued association with the perpetrator, and acceptance of illegal proceeds of the crime. To fully understand, and to try to shed light on this complex statute, let’s take a closer look.
“Either before or during the commission of an offense and with the intent to promote or facilitate such commission.” This part of the statute has two requirements; 1). You are more than just at the scene before or during the commission of the crime, you must provide some aid to the principle (person charged or expected of the crime), before or during the crime it must be some amount of proof, either by your own admission or one of the co-conspirators, that you aided in the crime. This admission can be as simple as you agreeing to drive somewhere, or as complex as when you get to the place the robbery happens and you drive the getaway car. Either way, you risk being accountable for the actions of another. 2). …and with the intent to promote or facilitate such commission, intent is a very strange and troublesome word in relation to the law. Intent can be inferred from a person’s actions, as well as the circumstances surrounding a person’s actions. We know someone’s intent when they pull a gun and shoot someone, but how do we know the intent of the person who is with that person firing the gun? Those six factors mentioned in the beginning: 1) presence at the scene of the crime, 2) acting as a lookout, 3) flight from the crime scene, 4) continued association with the perpetrator, 5) failure to report the crime, and 6) acceptance of any proceeds of the crime. Now, taken alone, any one factor is weak, but together they make the case for the prosecutor, and a guilty verdict will be the outcome at the trial. Though the law says that only these factors taken as a whole can add up to guilt. In certain situations that is not entirely true. Take for instance in People v. Perez, 189 ILL.2d 254, 256, 725 N.E.2nd 1258, the defendant was driving down the street and sees a fellow gang member in a confrontation with rival gang members. He approaches the group and a fellow gang member asks if one of the other rival gang member saw is his enemy. The defendant identifies one as the enemy, knowing that he is placing the rival in danger by doing so. The fellow gang member shoots and kills the rival. The court initially found him guilty of accountability, but on appeal he was acquitted
On the flip side of this coin, there is People v. Shaw, 186 ILL.2d 301, 713 NE.2d 1161, he was convicted of first degree murder of a police officer based on accountability. After a robbery that happened earlier in the evening, the victim called the police and described the getaway car. Later the police stopped a car matching the description given of the robbery suspect, the defendant, Shaw, was driving alone. When the police took the keys to open the trunk and search the vehicle, the principle jumped from the trunk and shot and killed the officer. After all was said and done Shaw was convicted of felony murder, robbery, and first degree murder. On appeal, the felony murder was thrown out because he could not be convicted of robbery but the first degree murder stuck because of his actions leading up to the murder. The finding of what his intent was leading up to the shooting was key. The court felt Shaw acted suspiciously when the officer stopped him, his failure to warn the officer,and he took cover when the officer opened the trunk.
That is a lot to take in, but the most innocent acts or actions can be said to have some sort of intent behind them, and even though you do not see it that way, the court’s will interpret them differently. So, it is incumbent upon us to know exactly what is going on around us at all times and to be fully aware of the company that we find ourselves in, because it is easy to go from mere presence at a crime scene to accountability for the actions of another in relation to criminal acts.
Curtis “Delayahu” Ferdinand
Leave a Reply