Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc · 1980 · Criminal Law
Criminal LawAccomplice liabilityAiding and abettingaiding and abettingaccomplice liabilityprincipal liabilityRCW 9.01.030nexus
Facts
An undercover police informant, Douglas Thompson, asked Gladstone where he could buy marijuana. Gladstone said he did not have enough to sell, named Robert Kent as someone who might be willing to sell, and drew a crude map showing where Kent lived. Thompson then went to Kent's residence and bought marijuana directly from Kent. The record contained no evidence that Gladstone had any agreement, arrangement, communication, or coordinated plan with Kent regarding the sale.
Issue
Whether evidence that Gladstone told an undercover buyer that Kent might sell marijuana and drew a map to Kent's residence was sufficient to prove that Gladstone aided and abetted Kent's later sale of marijuana.
Rule
Under RCW 9.01.030, a person is guilty as a principal for aiding and abetting only if he in some way associates himself with the criminal venture, participates in it as something he wishes to bring about, and seeks by his action to make it succeed. Mere information, rumor, or a statement that another might commit a crime, without proof of a nexus or purposive connection between the accused and the principal's commission of the offense, is insufficient.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Spokane, Evan Morse was asked by Nolan Price where he could buy illegal fireworks. Evan said he did not have any, but that Tara Bell 'might have some,' and he texted Nolan Tara's street address. Nolan went there and bought fireworks from Tara. There is no evidence Evan had spoken with Tara or had any arrangement with her about the sale.
Is the evidence sufficient to convict Evan of aiding and abetting Tara's sale?
Explanation. Aiding and abetting requires a nexus between the accused and the principal and proof that the accused associated himself with the venture, participated in it as something he wished to bring about, and sought by his action to make it succeed. Here, Evan merely supplied information about someone who might sell. Without evidence of communication, arrangement, encouragement, inducement, or other action directed toward Tara's sale, the evidence is insufficient.