State v. Vinson

For accomplice liability to attach, the defendant (1) must have the requisite mens rea and (2) must perform the requisite actus reus. The Court determined the evidence presented did not prove either intent or the requisite action needed to establish guilt as an accomplice.

Defendant appealed a conviction and assigned error to the trial court’s refusal to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal. At trial, the State advanced two theories: one that Defendant was primarily liable for possession and another that she was an accomplice to her son in possession. Defendant countered that her mere presence was not enough to establish constructive possession or that she was an accomplice to her son’s possession. On appeal, the State conceded the evidence did not show Defendant aided and abetted her son’s possession of methamphetamine. For accomplice liability to attach, the defendant (1) must have the requisite mens rea and (2) must perform the requisite actus reus. The Court determined the evidence presented did not prove either intent or the requisite action needed to establish guilt as an accomplice. Any evidence proving that Defendant tried to cover up her son's actions were not equivalent to aiding and abetting the crime. The Court agreed with Defendant and the State as to the insufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction of accomplice liability and held that the jury instructions and judgment eliminated primary liability, such that a remand could amount to double jeopardy. Reversed.