Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re J. D.

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided August 31, 1973No. 1649Published

1DissentErwin, Justice

I dissent from the view expressed by my colleagues that there is no evidence upon which appellant can be found to have aided and abetted the destruction of property at the home which was damaged.

Judge Learned Hand set forth the classic definition of “Aiding and abetting” in United States v. Peoni, 100 F.2d 401, 402 (2d Cir. 1938). This test was used by the United States Supreme Court in Nye & Nissen v. United States where the Court stated:

In order to aid and abet another to commit a crime it is necessary that a defendant “in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Nye & Nissen v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. United States v. PeoniCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1938
  3. Fresneda v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1969
  4. State v. GladstoneWashington Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Trounce v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1972

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API