PEOPLE V. KESSLER 315 N.E.2d 29 (1974) CASE BRIEF

PEOPLE V. KESSLER

315 N.E.2d 29 (1974)

NATURE OF THE CASE: People (P) challenged an order of the Appellate Court, which affirmed Kessler's (D) conviction for burglary but reversed his conviction for two counts of attempted murder.

FACTS: Kessler (D) went to Chicago to see Ronald Mass, who introduced him to Rodney Abney. The three men went to a restaurant and drank coffee, where D heard Mass ask another person about obtaining a pistol. The person stated he could not obtain a pistol, but would get a sawed-off shotgun by 8 o'clock that evening. D, Mass and Abney went to a store where Mass purchased a screwdriver while Abney simultaneously shoplifted one. Mass indicated that he had to 'put his hands on' $1800. D told Mass that he recalled seeing quantities of cash at the Anchor Tap, where he had previously been employed. The three men left Chicago about 8 p.m. and arrived at the Anchor Tap in Rockford about 10:30 p.m. Mass and Abney went into the Tap, had a drink, used the bathroom facilities through which they later gained access to the building, and then returned to D, who had remained in the car. They then went to another bar for a drink and then returned to the Anchor Tap. They spotted Louis Cotti, a co-owner of the Tap, came out to go home. Cottie left and then returned. He testified that he looked around, saw no one at the front of the tavern, then went to the rear of the building, entered the rear door and saw Abney and Mass up at the bar. He then left the building by the rear door and went across the street to a restaurant to call the police and to get help. Cotti and another man from the restaurant returned to the Tap and entered the rear door. Mass, who had found a pistol at the bar, then shot Cotti in the neck. Mass and Abney then fled from the bar and entered the car where D sat. Mass drove the car from the Tap and was pursued by the police. They were forced off the road and into a ditch. Mass and Abney ran from the car. D remained seated. Abney started shooting at the police, who had arrived at the scene. After an exchange of gunfire, one police officer ordered D from the car and frisked him. D climbed from the car, and before being advised of his rights, D said, 'I don't know what's going on all the shooting. I was just hitchhiking.' In reversing the attempted-murder convictions, the appellate court held that 'The application of the 'common design' principle was not justified to hold a defendant accountable for crimes committed by an accomplice which the defendant was not shown to have intended. It then stated that the Code does not impose liability on accountability principles for all consequences and further crimes which could flow from participation in the initial criminal venture, absent a specific intent by the accomplice being held accountable to commit, or aid and abet the commission of, such further crimes.' P argued 'that a person is responsible for all criminal violations actually committed by another if he assists another in the commission of a single criminal violation.' P appealed.

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