At what point does refusal to report a crime make one an accomplice to a crime? This is a question out of curiosity only, indirectly inspired by my last question post. I'm wondering at what point not reporting a crime is itself a crime. I know that if someone happens to witness a bar fight and doesn't immediately call the cops they are not guilty of a crime (or I assume they aren't, unless they're technically guilty and simply never prosecuted for it). This implies that the refusal to report a crime is not, by itself, a crime. However, I'm also pretty sure if, for example, a women knows her boyfriend is sexually assaulting their child and turns a blind eye to it she can be convicted as an accomplice to the crime. Likewise, I think if you're riding in the car with someone who does a hit and run you are required to report it or be an accomplice. So I'm wondering where this line is drawn. At what point does one's involvement become such that they are guilty simply for failing to report another individual, assuming they have not actively done anything to directly support the crime otherwise? Furthermore, if someone is indirectly benefiting from a crime they do not encourage or facilitate &ndash; for instance a wife getting a new fur coat after her husband robs a bank despite her not approving of the husband's actions &ndash; does this make her an accomplice? Is there a line here to draw, presumably a bar serving a drink to someone they know is a bookie doesn't make them guilty, even if the bookie presumably earned the money he is using to buy the drink via an illegal job?
TL;DR Never; unless there is a specific law in the jurisdiction that requires it, however, that is a separate crime, it doesn't make you an accomplice to the first crime. There is no general obligation to report a crime; some jurisdictions may have legislated to make reporting mandatory, either generally or for specific professions. Accomplice From the link, an accomplice is: One who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an Accessory. One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed, though mere presence, Acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act, is not enough, no matter how reprehensible it may be, to constitute one an accomplice. One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he or she gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime. Mandatory Reporting Many jurisdictions impose an obligation on certain professions to report suspected crimes. The most common and obvious being a police officer who generally has an obligation to report all suspected crimes. Other professions include doctors, teachers, nurses etc. in the case of suspected child abuse; sometimes this extends to elder abuse but usually doesn't include an obligation to report spousal abuse. If a person with such an obligation fails to report, they have not become an accomplice to the original crime or any future crime; they have broken a different law on their own. General consequences In general, a witness to a crime is not required to report it. They could be asked to give a statement but are not obliged to and would not be subject to arrest. If they were subpoenaed to appear in court as a witness then they would be obliged to do so and give evidence; failure to do either would be contempt of court. To be clear, a perpetrator of a crime is also not obliged to report it and is protected from contempt by rules about self-incrimination like the US Fifth Amendment. As an aside, NSW, Australia has recently passed a law that while maintaining the accused's right not to testify has allowed juries and judges to draw inference from the silence in their deliberations. Specific Laws Some jurisdictions have specific laws that make it a crime not to report. For example, in New South Wales, Australia Section 316 of the Crimes Act makes it an offence to conceal a serious indictable offence (i.e. one with a maximum penalty or 5 or more years gaol) that a person &quot;knows or believes&quot; has occurred without &quot;reasonable excuse&quot;. The punishment is up to 2 years; if you solicit or accept any benefit for concealing it, the punishment is 5 years. Prosecution for people who came by the information as a result of practicing certain professions requires permission of the Attorney General. Privilege A person may become aware of a crime through disclosure as part of a professional-client relationship. Such disclosures may be subject to privilege. At common law, only the lawyer-client relationship is legally privileged meaning that a lawyer cannot disclose what their client has said to them. This does not cover advice on committing or covering up a crime - if a lawyer does this there is no privilege and the lawyer may become an accomplice. Closely related is the litigation privilege where communications prepared as part of litigation (including criminal prosecutions) are protected even if they are not between the lawyer and the client. Some jurisdictions have statutorily extended this privilege to other relationships: doctor-patient, priest-confessor, pastor-parishioner, accountant-client, psychologist-patient etc. Check your local guides. Your examples The bar fight witness has no obligation to report and is not an accomplice. In NSW, this is the crime of affray, a serious indictable offence, and must be reported. The mother of the child has no obligation to report and, unless she is assisting or encouraging the commission of the sexual assault, is not an accomplice. Further, spousal testimonial privilege does not apply; i.e. the mother could be compelled to give evidence against the boyfriend or face contempt. In NSW, this is the crime of Sexual intercourse-child under 10, a serious indictable offence, and must be reported. The passenger has no obligation to report and is not an accomplice. In NSW, this is the crime of failing to stop and assist after vehicle impact causing death or grievous bodily harm, a serious indictable offence, and must be reported. Sub-questions At what point does one's involvement become such that they are guilty simply for failing to report another individual, assuming they have not actively done anything to directly support the crime otherwise? At the point where the person moves from being a witness to a participant by assisting or encouraging the perpetrator. ... if someone is indirectly benefiting from a crime they do not encourage or facilitate, ..., does this make them an accomplice? No, however, if the person knows that the benefit are the proceeds of crime then they could be charged with receiving stolen property and would not have good title in the property even if they didn't know. presumably a bar serving a drink to someone they know is a bookie doesn't make them guilty, even if the bookie presumably earned the money he is using to buy the drink via an illegal job? It depends if they know the money is the proceeds of crime; if they do then receiving it is a crime in its own right but it doesn't make them an accomplice.
Claim is irrelevant. Specific to Maryland Law, Assault occurs when one makes or attempts to make physical contact with another OR intentionally frightens another. Alice saying she helped to steal the car and your definition of the theft as &quot;accosted Carol&quot; implies one of the three forms of Assault took place. Alice just admitted to commiting the crime she thought was wrongly charged to her. The crime she was trying to get out of is called &quot;Assault and Battery&quot; which is where Assault leads to actual injury or physical harm to the victim OR attempts to actually injure or harm another OR puts them in fear of such action. In Maryland Law, the Battery portion almost always is paired with assault while in other states, it might be possible to commit Battery without Assault (though in these states, normally a separate assault charge to Battery is usually added.). As a helpful tip, the two words general break down as follows: Assault: The act of threatening harm or making unwanted non-injurious contact with another person. Battery: Causing Injurious Harm to another person. In Maryland, Alice was rightly charged with assault. Upon capture, Bob will recieve an &quot;Assault and Battery&quot; charge for hitting Carol with the stolen card and may get an addition simple Assault charge for the threats before he drove away.
Possibly negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter. Really dependson the state where this happens and the exact elements that need to be proven. Lester has asked his wife to do something that he knows might result in her death and does not warn her. He probably has a duty to warn her.
Your question is very broad, but yes, there innumerable ways that the actions of a victim/complainant can result in a not-guilty verdict. I'll list some. Contemporaneous consent to contact. If the victim/complainant consented to the contact, then the offence of assault or sexual assault will not have been committed. Self-defence. If the victim gave the accused reasonable grounds to believe that the victim was about to use force against the accused, then depending on the circumstances, it might not be an offence for the accused to take certain actions against the victim for the purpose of defending themself (the accused). The provocation defence that is based on conduct of the victim. See Criminal Code, s. 232, which can result in a not-guilty verdict for murder.
In the United States, many jurisdictions have criminal offenses outlawing behavior that may include what you're describing here. In Ohio, for instance, disorderly conduct (R.C. 2917.11) includes "insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response." In Indiana, there's the offense of provocation (IC 35-42-2-3), which is even broader and includes "recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally [engaging] in conduct that is likely to provoke a reasonable person to commit battery." It looks like this has been interpreted to include even actions that don't directly involve the provoked person, such as kissing another man's wife. Beyond the criminal offense, there are also jurisdictions that will permit a civil suit for damages resulting from the criminal act. There are also states where this could constitute intentional interference with business relations or intentional interference with an employment contract. In any of those cases, your co-workers could be looking at damages for lost wages, loss of reputation, etc.
I'm no expert, but I had assumed this clause was present in case of the following situation. Joe is arrested for a robbery of a London bank. Joe says nothing under questioning. At trial, Joe's defense is that at the time of the robbery, he was in Sheffield drinking beer with his brother. On the basis of common sense, a jury could think: "Surely if Joe were really innocent, he would have told the police of his alibi at the time he was questioned, and saved himself a lot of trouble. Since he didn't do that, maybe a more likely explanation is that he wasn't actually in Sheffield, but that sometime between arrest and trial, he came up with the idea of faking an alibi in Sheffield, and convinced people to testify falsely to that effect. Yes, that does seem more plausible. So we are not going to give much credence to Joe's supposed alibi." So it really would be the case that not mentioning the alibi during questioning would harm Joe's defense at trial. The warning, then, is intended to keep Joe from doing this inadvertently. If Joe's alibi is genuine, but out of a misguided desire to exercise his right to remain silent, he doesn't mention it during questioning, he may accidentally increase his chances of being wrongly convicted. Everybody has an interest in avoiding this.
It isn't clear that the example you give is illegal police action, but let's assume that it is for the sake of this question, since it doesn't affect the analysis. If possession is not compelled, then it is voluntary.
united-states Generally, a witness cannot object to a question on the grounds that it fails to conform to a rule of evidence (e.g. hearsay). A witness can refuse to testify on a matter either due to the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, or on the grounds that some other privilege (e.g. attorney-client, clergy confession, spousal) applies. A witness can also say that they don't understand the question as phrased (either because it is complicated or because it contains terminology or concepts that the witness doesn't understand), or that the witness didn't hear the question, or that the witness forgot what the question was while the lawyers and judges were discussing whether it could be asked. This often results in the question being restated or rephrased. A witness may also answer a question by stating that there is no answer to the question as it is based upon a false premise (e.g. &quot;on which day of the week did you beat your wife?&quot;). And, if true, a witness can properly answer that they don't know the answer, either because they never knew or because they don't currently recall the answer.