ACCOMPLICE (Lat. ad and compticare con, with, together, plicare, to fold, to wrap, —to fold together).
In Criminal Law. One who is concerned in the commission of a crime.
"One who is in some way concerned in the commission of a crime, though not as a principal." Cross v. People, 47 Ill. 152, 95 Am. Dec. 474.
"One of many equally concerned in a fel ony, the term being generally applied to those who are admitted to give evidence against their fellow Criminals for the fur therance of justice, which might otherwise be eluded." Cross v. People, 47 Ill. 152, 95 Am. Dec. 474.
"One who being present aids by acts or encourages by words the principal offender in the commission of the offense," is erro neous as a definition; such person is a prin cipal; Smith v. State, 13 Tex. App. 507. He must in some manner assist or participate in the criminal act, and by that connection he becomes equally involved in guilt with the other party ; People v. Smith, 28 Hun (N. Y.) 626; Cross v. People, 47 Ill. 152, 95 Am. Dec. 474. The purchaser of liquor sold in violation of the law is not an accomplice; State v. Teahan, 50 Conn. 92; People v. Smith, 28 Hun (N. Y.) 626; nor is a minor child who is coerced into assisting in an unlawful act; People v. Miller, 66 Cal. 468, 6 Pac. 99; Beal v. State, 72 Ga. 200; nor one who does not immediately disclose the fact that a homicide has been committed; Bird v. U. S., 187 U. S. 118, 23 Sup. Ct. 42, 47 L. Ed. 100; nor one who joins in a game with others who are betting, but does not bet himself ; Bass v. State, 37 Ala. 469.
The term In its fulness includes in its meaning all persons who have been concerned In the commis sion of a crime, all participee eriminis, whether they are considered in strict legal propriety as prin cipals in the first or second degree, or merely as accessaries before or after the fact; Feet. Cr. Cas. 341; 1 Russ. Cr. 21; 4 Bla. Com. 331; 1 Phil. By. 28; Merlin, Repert. Comp/ice.
It has been questioned, whether one who was an accomplice to a suicide can be punished as such. A case occurred in Prussia where a soldier, at the re quest of his comrade, had cut the latter in pieces; for this he was tried capitally. In the year 1817, a young woman named Leruth received a recompense for aiding a man to kill himself. He put the point of a bistoury on his naked breast, and used the hand of the young woman to plunge it with greater force Into his bosom ; hearing some noise, he or dered her away. The man, receiving effectual aid, was soon cured of the wound which had been in flicted, and she was tried and convicted of having inflicted the wound. Lepage, Science des Droit, ch. 2, art. 3, § 5. The case of Saul, the King of Israel, and his armor-bearer (1 Sam. xxxi. 4), and of David and the Amalekite (2 Sam. i. 2), will doubtless oc cur to the reader.
It has been held, that, If one counsels another to commit suicide, he is principal in the murder ; for it is a presumption of law that advice has the influ ence and effect intended by the adviser, unless. it is
shown to have been otherwise, as, for example, that it was received with scoff or manifestly rejected and ridiculed at the time ; Commonwealth v. Bow en, 13 Mass. 359, '7 Am. Dec. 154.
It is now finally settled that it is not a rule of law but of practice only that a jury should not convict on the unsupported tes timony of an accomplice. Therefore, if a jury choose to act on such evidence only, the conviction cannot be quashed as bad in law. The better practice is for the judge to advise the jury to acquit, unless the tes timony of the accomplice is corroborated, not only as to the circumstances of the offence, but also as to the participation of the accus ed in the transaction; and when several par ties are charged, that it is not sufficient that the accomplice should be confirmed, as to one or more of the prisoners, to justify a conviction of those prisoners with respect to whom there is no confirmation; 1 Leach 464; 31 How. St. Tr. 967; 7 Cox, Cr. Cas. 20; Com. v. Savory, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 535; Col lins v. People, 98 Ill. 584, 38 Am. Rep. 105; Flanagin v. State, 25 Ark. 92; People v. Jenness, 5 Mich. 305; Carroll v. Com., 84 Pa. 107. See 1 Post. & F. 388; Com. v. Holmes, 127 Mass. 424, 34 Am. Rep. 391, 408.
Though the evidence of an accomplice un corroborated is sufficient, if the jury are fully convinced of the truth of his state ments; Linsday v. People, 63 N. Y. 143 ; Collins v. People, 98 Ill. 584, 38 Am. Rep. 105; it is the settled course of practice in England not to convict a prisoner, excepting under very special circumstances, upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice; [1908] 2 K. B. 680; C. of Cr. App. In the federal courts tbo testimony of an accomplice need not necessarily be corroborated; Ahearn v. U. S., 158 Fed. 606, 85 C. C. A. 428; it should be received with caution; U. S. v. Ybanez, 53 Fed. 536; State v. Minor, 117 Mo. 302, 22 S. W. 1085; State v. Patterson, 52 Kan. 335, 34 Pac. 784.
This general statement is substantially the result of the cases in both countries as to the treatment of the testimony of an ac complice. As to the corroboration required, the cases may be divided into three classes, requiring corroboration-1. Of that part of the testimony which connects the prisoner with the crime. 2. Of a material part of the testimony. 3. Of any portion of the testi mony. The cases may be found in an able note in 71 Am. Dec. 671.
An accomplice, upon making a full disclo sure, has a just claim but not a legal right to recommendation for a pardon, which can not however be pleaded in bar to the indict ment; U. S. v. Ford, 99 U. S. 594, 25 L. Ed. 399; Ex parte Wells, 18 How. (U. S.) 307, 15 L. Ed. 421; but he may use it to put off the trial, in order to give him time to apply for a pardon; id.; Cowp. 331; 1 Leach 115.
An accomplice is not incompetent when in dicted separately; State v. Umble, 115 Mo. 452, 22 S. W. 378.
See RING'S EVIDENCE ; TROYER ; ACCESSORY ; ABORTION.