criminal-law
Can we have an accessory while a principal is acquitted?
<p>Can someone be convicted of being an accessory to a crime while a principal is acquitted? By definition an accessory helps conceal evidence or persons involved in a felony. If a principal is not charged as a felon, but the crime is still a felony, then doesn't that require there being another principal who is the felon, or can we have a felony without a felon? </p>

<h2>Of course</h2>

<p>The prosecution just needs to prove that the crime happened (or the defendant believed it to have happened) and you helped (in brief, there will be specific elements of the crime that each need to be proved). This would be easier if the primary crime had a convicted perpetrator but it’s not impossible without.</p>

<p>Allow me to illustrate with an example. I will set out facts which are somewhat contrived and would not be so clear cut in a real case but for the purposes of the example please take them as undisputed and fully supported by evidence.</p>

<ul>
<li>John and Jill are in a relationship.</li>
<li>This relationship is well known to be argumentative with frequent shouting matches and one or the other storming out.</li>
<li>This does not amount to domestic violence by either party.</li>
<li>John's friend Alan believes (wrongly) that there <em>is</em> domestic violence.</li>
<li>During an argument Jill drops dead of a heart attack.</li>
<li>John rings Alan distraught and says "I've killed her."</li>
<li>Alan assumes (wrongly) that John has murdered Jill.</li>
<li>Alan says "i'll take care of it. You go to your dad's".</li>
<li>Alan (alone) disposes of the body.</li>
<li>John is not guilty of murder (or indeed, anything).</li>
<li>Alan <em>is</em> guilty of accessory to murder even though the actual crime never happened. The fact that Alan believed it happened is enough.</li>
</ul>
