COMMONWEALTH V. ROEBUCK 32 A.3d 613 (2011) CASE BRIEF

COMMONWEALTH V. ROEBUCK

32 A.3d 613 (2011)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal of an affirmation of a conviction for complicity in third degree homicide.

FACTS: The victim was lured to an apartment complex, where he was ambushed, shot, and mortally wounded. Roebuck (D) participated, with others, in orchestrating the events, but he did not shoot the victim. D was charged with murder of the third degree. As he did not physically perpetrate the homicide, the Commonwealth (P) relied upon accomplice theory. D was found guilty and appealed. D argued that there is no rational legal theory to support accomplice liability for third-degree murder. Third-degree murder is an unintentional killing committed with malice; therefore, to adjudge a criminal defendant guilty of third-degree murder as an accomplice would be to accept that the accused intended to aid an unintentional act, which is a logical impossibility. The appeals court stated the requisite mens rea for the offense: When causing a particular result is an element of an offense, an accomplice in the conduct causing such result is an accomplice in the commission of that offense, if he acts with the kind of culpability, if any, with respect to that result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense. The court reasoned that, '[i]f one participates in a criminal act, which also demonstrates malice, and if a life is taken, one can be convicted of ... third-degree murder vicariously.' It held that complicity applies in third-degree murder scenarios even if homicide was not the intended underlying crime where the intentional acts demonstrate a disregard for human life amounting to malice. They affirmed and this appeal resulted.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner