Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

A justification defense is personal to the undercover agent and not transferable to the accomplice. 742 P.2d at 786. It is clear from most statutory schemes that a principal does not need to be found guilty or even prosecuted in order to convict the accomplice. Further, it has been said that 'it is the abettor's state of mind rather than the state of mind of the perpetrator which determines the abettor's guilt or innocence.' R. Perkins & R. Boyce, Criminal Law 743 (3d ed. 1982) (hereinafter Criminal Law). Because the accomplice's state of mind is the focus, defenses of entrapment, duress and heat of passion are not imputed to the accomplice. United States v. Azadian, 436 F.2d 81 (9th Cir. 1971) (entrapment); State v. Harvey, 303 Ore. 351, 736 P.2d 191, 193 (1987) (per curiam) (duress); Parker v. Commonwealth, 180 Ky. 102, 201 S.W. 475, 478 (1918) (heat of passion). The entrapment defense has been likened to an immunity from prosecution based on government conduct. Carbajal-Portillo v. United States, 396 F.2d 944, 948 (9th Cir. 1968). The public authority justification defense operates to immunize the public official from criminal liability for acts within the ...

Register or login to access full content