Why Co-Conspirators Become Co-Defendants: You Don't Have to Enter the Bank to Be Charged With the Robbery
When several people work together to commit a crime, it can be tempting to think that each person's criminal responsibility is limited to what that person personally did.
That is not necessarily how Minnesota criminal law works.
In Minnesota, a person can be held criminally responsible for a crime committed by another when that person intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, conspires with, or otherwise procures the other person to commit the crime. Minnesota law can also extend liability to additional crimes committed in furtherance of the intended crime when those crimes were reasonably foreseeable to the person. See Minn. Stat. § 609.05.
“If you are part of the plan, the set up, or even a small part of the act, you can responsible for everything everybody else does.”
In other words, you don't necessarily have to be the person who physically commits the act to face the same criminal charge.
Imagine a Bank Robbery
Consider a hypothetical group planning to rob a bank.
There are five people involved:
The Planner: This person designs the robbery, gets the layout of the building, studies the bank, determines when it should happen, and organizes everyone else's roles—but never goes to the bank.
The Safe Cracker: This person is responsible for getting into the bank's safe.
The Lookout: This person stays outside and watches for police or other problems.
The Getaway Driver: This person waits in the car and is responsible for getting everyone away from the scene.
The Person Who Enters the Bank: This person actually goes inside and commits the robbery.
Now imagine that police arrest all five.
The Planner might say, "I never went inside the bank."
The Lookout might say, "I never entered the bank."
The Driver might say, "I never robbed anyone."
The Safe Cracker might say, "I never took the money."
Those statements may describe what each person physically did. But they don't necessarily answer the legal question of whether each person intentionally participated in the criminal enterprise.
Minnesota's accomplice-liability statute specifically recognizes criminal responsibility for someone who intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, conspires with, or otherwise procures another person to commit a crime. Again, See Minn. Stat. § 609.05.
The Law Looks at More Than Who Held the Gun
Criminal cases involving multiple participants often turn on the difference between being present and intentionally participating.
Minnesota appellate decisions explain that "intentionally aids" includes two important concepts: the defendant must know that the other person is going to commit a crime, and the defendant must intend that his or her actions further the commission of that crime.
That means the getaway driver isn't automatically an accomplice simply because he happened to drive someone to a bank. The State generally must establish the required knowledge and intent.
But if the driver knows about the robbery, agrees to participate, waits for the robbers, and drives them away as part of the plan, the driver's role can potentially expose that person to criminal liability for the robbery even though the driver never stepped inside the bank. See Minn. Stat. § 609.05.
The same principle can apply to the person who designed the plan, the lookout, and the safe cracker.
Different jobs do not necessarily mean different criminal liability.
What About Crimes Committed by Someone Else?
This is where Minnesota's law can become especially important.
See Minn. Stat. § 609.05. , subdivision 2, provides that a person who is liable under the accomplice-liability statute can also be liable for another crime committed in furtherance of the intended crime if that additional crime was reasonably foreseeable to that person as a probable consequence of committing or attempting to commit the intended crime.
For example, suppose the group plans a bank robbery and one of the participants commits an additional offense while carrying out that robbery.
The other participants cannot necessarily avoid responsibility simply by saying, "That wasn't my job."
The legal question can include whether the additional crime was committed in furtherance of the intended crime and whether it was reasonably foreseeable to the particular participant.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has applied this principle in cases involving accomplice liability, explaining that an accomplice to an underlying offense may also be liable for another offense committed in furtherance of that offense when the statutory requirements are satisfied.
Why Co-Conspirators Become Co-Defendants
This is one reason a criminal investigation can expand quickly.
Law enforcement may initially focus on the person who physically committed the offense. But as investigators examine phone records, messages, surveillance video, financial transactions, witness statements, vehicle movements, and other evidence, they may begin looking at everyone who allegedly participated in the plan.
One person may have organized it.
Another may have provided the tools.
Another may have acted as lookout.
Another may have driven.
Another may have entered the building.
The roles are different. But under Minnesota law, the distinction between the person who physically commits the crime and the person who intentionally assists in committing it does not necessarily determine criminal liability.
That is why co-conspirators can become co-defendants.
"But I Never Went Inside."
That may be an important fact in a criminal case—but it is not necessarily the end of the analysis.
The question is not simply:
"Did you personally commit the physical act?"
The questions may also include:
What did you know?
What did you agree to do?
What did you intend?
What actions did you take?
Were your actions intended to further the crime?
What crime was the group attempting to accomplish?
Did another crime occur in furtherance of that plan?
Was that additional crime reasonably foreseeable to you?
Those distinctions can be critical.
And they are precisely the kinds of questions that should be examined by an experienced criminal defense attorney when someone is accused of participating in a crime with other people.
Every Role Matters
Going back to our bank robbery:
The planner doesn't get to say, "I didn't go."
The lookout doesn't necessarily get to say, "I never touched the money."
The safe cracker doesn't necessarily get to say, "I didn't drive."
The getaway driver doesn't necessarily get to say, "I stayed in the car."
If prosecutors can establish the elements of accomplice liability, each participant can potentially face serious criminal charges based on the role that person intentionally played in the overall criminal conduct.
But there is another important side to this principle:
Being accused of participating in a crime does not automatically make someone legally guilty.
The State still has to prove the applicable elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. And the specific facts, evidence, mental state, and role of each defendant matter.
If you or someone you care about has been accused of participating in a crime with other people, do not assume that your limited role makes the charges insignificant—and do not assume that the other person's actions automatically make you guilty either.
Get legal advice about the specific facts of your case.
Facing Criminal Charges in the Twin Cities?
If you are facing criminal charges in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or elsewhere in the Twin Cities, Jack Rice Defense can help you understand the charges you are facing and the legal issues surrounding your case.
Call 651-447-7650 or 612-227-1339 for a free, confidential consultation.
