State v. Parker

Facts

Larry Leventhal, was a 25-year-old senior at the University of Minnesota Law School who spent the summer of 1966 working on a research project at the University. He testified that after taking his date home on the evening of August 5, he parked one block away from Seven Corners. He visited three establishments frequented by college people where he watched an all-star football game and talked to students but did not have anything to drink. At the third establishment Larry 'danced a couple times' and then left for his automobile 'just after 1:00.' Walking back to his car, Larry encountered a couple waiting on the corner for the light to change. The woman was an Indian. The man was white. Larry talked with the couple for a minute or two. Since they did not have a ride, he offered them one. The couple asked Larry to come into their residence, but he first told them he would rather not because he wanted to get home. They insisted, and he went in with them. Larry met the woman's sister and one of the two codefendants, Calvin Earl Sam. Sam asked Larry for a ride to get burgers, but upon arrival there they found the restaurant closed. D was standing 3-4 blocks from the restaurant with a girl. Sam stated that he knew the man and Larry stopped the car. Sam talked to defendant for a few minutes, introducing Larry to D and the girl. Defendant said he knew of a party he would like to attend and asked Larry if he wanted to go to the party, Larry answering that he did not. Then he was asked if he would give them a ride to it and he agreed to do this. D then got into the car. They went to apartment so Sam could get some beer. They directed Larry to the place where the party was supposed to be in progress. On the way, they spotted Paul Peter Roy, D's brother. D then asked Larry to give Roy a ride to the party. Roy got into the back seat and sat on the right side. D and Sam were in the front seat. Roy also stated that he wanted some beer for the party and directed Larry to an address several blocks away, where he got out and returned to the automobile carrying a sack. Larry told them he was anxious to get home. They then proceeded to try to locate the party. They located the party, but it was empty. They drove around some more and came back. Larry said he had to go and the people would have to get out. None of them moved. Suddenly, D grabbed Larry's arm and with his other hand grabbed for the keys to the car. Almost instantly the three of them piled onto Larry, holding him down while D wrestled the keys from his hand. All three of them were then hitting him. He was pushed into the back seat by D and Sam. The accomplice, Roy, then proceeded to hold Larry in a 'hammerlock,' grabbing his wallet. D assumed control of the car and took off, driving rapidly. Larry's billfold, which contained $30 to $35, and his watch were taken. Larry was being 'hit quite continually' and choked. In an effort to escape, Larry told them that he had an apartment and that he had about $500 in it which they could have. He tried also tried to entice them into a factory in north Minneapolis that had quite a bit of money on hand that he could get into. Roy kept saying things like, 'You know you are going to die, don't you?' or 'This is going to be curtains for you. I killed three guys, and you are going to be the fourth.' D said several times, 'Shoot him now,' and 'Let's get rid of him right now.' After further abuse, they grabbed one of the full beer bottles and 'cracked' him over the head. The bottle broke, shattering glass everywhere. Larry recalled being struck on the head at least three times. He finally concluded that his only chance might be to fake unconsciousness, but when he did so, he was hit a number of times after he had gone limp. The blows were continuous and merciless. Larry eventually caught them off guard and escaped. He kept running for several blocks until he reached a busy street where he sought help from passing motorists. Ds were arrested, and Larry identified D, Sam, and Roy in a lineup. When Ds were arrested, the police found Larry's billfold underneath the front seat on the floor of the passenger side. On the dashboard, there was a plastic case containing Larry's driver's license and other identification. A quantity of beer and wine was also recovered from the vehicle, the major part of which was in the back seat. Officer Remily explained that he found numerous bottles and broken glass on the seat and in the rear of the car. He also stated that there was a 'fresh stain' on the rear seat. D admitted being present but denied that he took any part in the assault or that he had taken any of Larry's property. The jury returned for instructions, asking clarification on the point of 'aiding and abetting.' The foreman explained: there is a little confusion as to how far -- how much a person has to do to say that he is aiding, even at the point of can a person aid by inaction, by not leaving, if it's quite apparent to him that there is trouble * * *. Can he aid by his, say, just by his inaction at that point * * *.' The Court read to the jury that portion of the instructions covering aiding and abetting: 'A person is criminally liable for a crime committed by another if he intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime. The guilt of a defendant may be established without proof that the accused personally did every act constituting the offense charged. Whoever commits an offense or wilfully aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission is punishable as a principal. Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense is punishable as a principal. Every person who thus wilfully participates in the commission of a crime may be found to be guilty of that offense. Participation is willful if done voluntarily and purposely, and with specific intent to do some act the law forbids or with specific intent to fail to do some act the law requires to be done. That is to say, with evil motive or bad purpose either to disobey or disregard the law.' D was found guilty and appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.