State v. Parker
Supreme Court of Minnesota
164 N.W.2d 633 (1969)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Larry Leventhal gave John Parker (defendant) and two other passengers a ride in Leventhal’s car. The passengers robbed Leventhal; took Leventhal’s wallet, watch, and car; and beat Leventhal severely before he was able to escape. Parker and the other passengers were pulled over by the police while driving Leventhal’s car and were arrested after trying to run away. At trial, Leventhal testified that Parker had personally contributed to the robbery and assault, while Parker testified to playing no role in the events. Parker admitted to being in the car at the time of the incident but said that he had only watched while the other passengers beat and robbed Leventhal. After the trial, the jury asked for further clarification of the law on aiding and abetting. The court reread the relevant statute, which provided that a person was liable as a principal for a crime committed by another if the person assisted in the commission of, or conspired with others to commit, the crime. The statute also provided that a defendant’s guilt could be established without a showing that the defendant performed every act constituting the offense. Parker was convicted and subsequently appealed, arguing that the trial court had effectively instructed the jury that Parker had a legal duty to help Leventhal that Parker did not have.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nelson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
