Main Content
Note on Hicks
According to the Hicks court, the jury was mis-instructed regarding both the necessary mens rea and the necessary actus reus to make Hicks Rowe's accomplice in shooting Colvard. What, exactly, was wrong with the instruction? Had the jury been properly instructed on these criteria, do you think it could have come to the conclusion that Hicks did enough to be Rowe's accomplice in the shooting?
As you can see, Hicks raises concerns about guilt by association. The court makes clear that just being present when Rowe shoots Colvard is not enough to make Hicks Rowe's accomplice in that shooting, even if Hicks hopes that Rowe does shoot him. How, though, do we explain to a jury what more a purported accomplice must do before he can be responsible for the principal's conduct? The next section takes on this difficult question.
This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.