Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Gray and Burk drove Redding for the purpose of robbing D's sister-in-law of jewelry, including a 3.5-carat diamond ring. Burk knocked at the door and presented himself as a poll taker, and asked to be let in. She asked for identification, and he forced her into the hallway and entered. Gray in a ski mask, followed. Tape was placed over her mouth and eyes, and she was tied her to a bathroom fixture. Numerous pieces of jewelry and a set of silverware were taken. The total value was over $100,000. The telephone wires inside the house were cut. D was arrested six days later in Emeryville in possession of several of the less valuable of the stolen rings. He ratted and Burk and Gray were arrested. Burk and Gray pled guilty to robbery. They testified that D had been extensively involved in planning the crime. D told Burk about certain valuables owned by D's aunt. D also gave Burk other information about his aunt and her possessions. This had been ongoing for 2.5 months prior to the robbery. One week before the discussions became very specific. D wanted nothing to do with the actual robbery because he feared being recognized. He drew a floor plan of the victim's house and told Burk where the diamond ring was likely to be found. D agreed to sell the jewelry for 20 percent of the proceeds. Two days before the offense, D told Gray that he wanted nothing to do with the robbery of his relatives. On the day preceding the incident D repeated he wanted nothing to do with the robbery, but confirmed that he had told Burk that he would not say anything if the others went ahead. D was upset when he saw that his friends had gone through with the robbery and had taken all of the victim's jewelry. D was angered further when he discovered that Burk might be recognized because he had not disguised himself. D asked for the stolen goods. Burk and Gray handed over a watch and some rings which they believed he could sell. Gray and Burk sold the silverware for $900. Burk fled to Los Angeles. D asked for Gray's cooperation in recovering and returning the property to the victim. On several occasions when Burk called them for more money, D stalled and avoided questions about the sale of the jewelry. D denied a lot of the testimony, but there were significant contradictions in that testimony from established facts. D claimed that he gave the information casually, and refused when Burk asked him to join. The jury was instructed that an aider is one who knowingly aids the commission of a crime. The jury submitted two written questions to the court: 'We would like to hear again how one is determined to be an accessory and by what actions can he absolve himself'; and 'Does inaction mean the party is guilty?' The jury found him to be guilty because he knowingly helped Burk to commit the crime. D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co