When Are You an Accessory (Principal) to a Crime in Louisiana?
Disclaimer: This article offers general information about Louisiana law. It does not constitute legal advice. Always consult a qualified attorney about your specific situation.
Introduction
The words “accessory” and “principal” often cause confusion. In Louisiana, an accessory after the fact is a separate crime (harboring or helping a felon after the crime), while “principals” are treated like the main offender. Under Louisiana law, anyone who knowingly participates in the commission of a crime whether they directly commit the act, aid and abet, or encourage the crime may be charged as a principal and punished as though they personally committed the offense. Understanding when you cross the line from being an innocent bystander to a principal is crucial for anyone accused of helping a friend, relative, or business partner during a criminal act.
This post uses Louisiana Revised Statutes (La. R.S.) § 14:24 and case law to explain the elements of principal liability, defenses to avoid being deemed a principal, and the penalties involved. It also answers common questions and highlights why experienced representation, such as that available from The Ambeau Law Firm, is essential when facing these serious charges.
What Does the Statute Say?
La. R.S. § 14:24 defines principals broadly:
“All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether present or absent, and whether they directly commit the act, aid and abet in its commission, or directly or indirectly counsel or procure another to commit the crime, shall be principals.”
This statute means that if you intentionally help, encourage, or plan a crime, you are just as responsible as the person who carries it out. It does not matter whether you are physically present or how minor your role seems, as long as you knowingly participate.
The law distinguishes accessories after the fact (people who knowingly hide or help a felon escape after the offense). Accessories after the fact are treated separately under La. R.S. § 14:25 with distinct penalties. Principals, by contrast, are charged and punished as if they committed the crime themselves.
Elements of Being a Principal
To be convicted as a principal in Louisiana, the state must prove:
- An underlying crime was committed – the prosecution must show that a criminal offense occurred.
- Participation – the defendant actively participated by committing the act, aiding and abetting, or encouraging/counseling the crime.
- Specific or general intent – the defendant must have the mental state required for the underlying crime. For crimes requiring specific intent, the state must prove the defendant actively desired the criminal result; for general intent crimes, it is enough that the defendant must have adverted to the criminal consequences.
“Aid or Abet”
Aid or abet means assisting, facilitating, or encouraging another in committing the crime. Examples include providing a weapon, acting as a lookout, driving the getaway car, luring the victim, or giving advice on how to commit the act. Mere presence during the crime is insufficient to be a principal; there must be active participation or encouragement. In State v. Pierre, the court emphasized that mere presence at the scene, without proof of specific intent or assistance, does not make one a principal. The state must show the defendant shared the criminal intent and participated in furthering the crime.
Agreement and Planning
While conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more people with an overt act (see La. R.S. 14:26), being a principal does not require proof of a formal agreement. However, evidence that the defendant planned the crime or coordinated with the perpetrator is strong proof of principal liability.
Mental State
If the underlying crime requires specific intent (for example, murder or theft), the prosecution must prove the defendant actively desired the criminal result. In State v. Rittiner, the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that the jury had to find that the accused knowingly and intentionally conspired to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, distinguishing specific from general intent. Thus, if the crime requires specific intent, all principals must share that intent. For general intent crimes (such as negligence-based offenses), the state must prove the defendant consciously committed acts that the law forbids.
Defenses to Principal Liability
Although the definition of a principal is broad, there are several defenses and strategies to avoid conviction.
Lack of Intent or Knowledge
You cannot be guilty as a principal if you did not have the criminal intent required. For specific intent crimes, the prosecution must prove you actively desired the criminal outcome. For general intent crimes, they must show you were aware of the consequences. Defense counsel may argue that you lacked the mental state – for instance, that you did not know the plan or that you were coerced.
Mere Presence or Association
Being present at the scene, even if you fled afterward, does not automatically make you a principal. The courts have repeatedly held that mere presence or close association without participation is not enough. In State v. Pierre, the court reversed a conviction because the evidence showed only that the defendant was present but did not participate or share the criminal intent.
Withdrawal
If you initially aid or plan a crime but later withdraw in good faith, communicate your withdrawal to co-conspirators, and do not participate further, you can avoid principal liability. Evidence of withdrawal might include calling off the plan, leaving the scene, or warning authorities.
Duress or Coercion
If you only participated because of threats of death or serious bodily harm, you may raise a defense of duress. However, duress does not absolve you if you willingly joined the crime before being threatened.
Entrapment and Innocent Participation
If law enforcement induced you to participate in a crime you otherwise would not have committed, entrapment may be a defense. You can also argue that you performed acts innocently, without knowledge of the criminal scheme.
Louisiana Case Law on Principals
1. State v. Pierre (La. App. 2017)
The defendant was charged as a principal to a shooting. The appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the state failed to show he had specific intent to kill or that he aided the shooter. Merely being present in the area was not enough. The decision emphasized that active participation and shared intent are necessary.
2. State v. Rittiner (La. 1976)
Rittiner was charged with conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. During the trial, the jury was instructed that conspiracy requires an agreement, a specific purpose to commit a crime, and an overt act in furtherance. The judge explained the difference between specific and general intent and told jurors that the state must prove the defendant knowingly and intentionally conspired with intent to distribute. The Louisiana Supreme Court held these instructions were adequate and affirmed the conviction. This case shows that when the underlying crime requires specific intent, the state must prove the defendant shared that intent.
3. State v. D’Ingianni (La. 1950)
This early case involved a scheme to defraud an insurance company. The defendant and his associates planned to fake a robbery to collect insurance money. The court considered whether the alleged overt act (riding together in a car) was sufficient to support a conspiracy charge. The court held that any act, even an innocent one such as an automobile ride, done in furtherance of the agreement suffices, and it is unnecessary to detail how the act furthered the conspiracy. The court also distinguished conspiracy from attempt: conspiracy punishes the agreement and intent, while attempt requires an act tending directly toward the commission of the crime. The case demonstrates that seemingly minor acts can expose you to criminal liability if they further a crime.
4. State v. John L. Fussell, Sr. (La. App. 2024)
Fussell was convicted of conspiracy to commit second degree murder and as a principal to second degree murder. On appeal, the court vacated the murder conviction due to a non‑unanimous jury verdict but upheld the conspiracy conviction. The court explained that the overt act need not be unlawful; it may be any act, innocent or illegal, done to further the agreement. The court also stressed that specific intent can be inferred from the circumstances and that circumstantial evidence is sufficient if it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Finally, the court noted that conspiracy and the completed crime are separate offenses, so a conviction for one does not bar prosecution for the other.
Penalties for Principals
Because principals are treated like primary offenders, the penalty depends on the underlying crime. For example:
- Drug distribution – Principals to distribution or possession with intent to distribute can face the same prison terms and fines as the dealer.
- Financial crimes – Principals in fraud schemes may owe restitution and face the same sentences as the main fraudster.
- Theft – A person who plans or helps execute a theft can be charged with the same grade of theft and may be required to pay back stolen property.
The severity increases if the crime is punishable by life imprisonment or death. If you are an accessory after the fact (La. R.S. 14:25), the penalty is limited to fines or imprisonment up to half of the maximum for the underlying offense, but as a principal, you face the full sentence.
Practical Examples
Drug Conspiracy
Suppose three individuals agree to purchase and distribute large quantities of methamphetamine. One person finances the purchase, another secures a transport vehicle, and the third arranges meetings with buyers. Even if the financier never touches the drugs, or the driver never sees the money, they are principals because they knowingly participated. If caught, each can be charged with distribution and face the same penalties. If the conspiracy is foiled before the drugs are delivered, prosecutors can still charge them with conspiracy if an overt act (such as arranging the shipment or meeting with buyers) occurred.
Financial Crime
A group plans to submit fraudulent insurance claims. One conspirator stages an accident, another files the claim, and a third person provides false witness statements. Under State v. D’Ingianni, even an act like driving to the staging location can be the overt act supporting conspiracy. The person who simply arranged transportation may be liable as a principal to insurance fraud.
Theft Rings
Retail theft rings often involve organizers who recruit shoplifters, supply tools, and resell stolen goods. Even if the organizer never enters the store, providing instructions and buying the stolen items makes them a principal. The penalties correspond to the value of the stolen items; high value theft can result in felony convictions and lengthy prison terms.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is the difference between being a principal and an accessory?
A principal is someone who participates in planning or committing a crime and is punished the same as the person who actually commits it. An accessory after the fact helps a felon evade arrest after the crime and faces a separate, often lesser penalty.
Is mere presence at the scene enough to be a principal?
No. The state must prove you actively participated or encouraged the crime. In State v. Pierre, mere presence without evidence of shared intent or assistance was insufficient.
Do you need to be at the crime scene to be a principal?
No. The statute applies to those who counsel or procure the crime even if they are absent. For example, someone who plans a bank robbery but waits at home can still be convicted.
Can you be convicted of both conspiracy and the completed crime?
Yes. Louisiana law allows prosecution for both the conspiracy and the completed offense, and conviction of one does not bar the other.
What must prosecutors prove to convict you as a principal?
They must show a crime occurred, that you knowingly participated, and that you had the requisite intent. In conspiracies, they must also prove at least one overt act occurred to further the plan.
How is specific intent proven?
Specific intent may be shown by direct evidence (statements or admissions) or inferred from circumstances and actions. For example, secret meetings, providing resources, or sharing profits may indicate intent.
What is an “overt act” in a conspiracy?
An overt act is any act, even an innocent one, done by a co-conspirator to further the criminal objective. It need not be illegal; a ride to a meeting or purchasing supplies can suffice.
If I withdraw from the plan, can I avoid liability?
Possibly. You must communicate withdrawal and take no further actions. Withdrawal is easier to raise as a defense in conspiracy than in completed crimes, but you may still be liable for earlier acts.
Does the statute require the crime to occur?
No. You can be charged as a principal to a conspiracy even if the crime is not completed. Simply agreeing and committing an overt act can lead to liability.
How can The Ambeau Law Firm help me?
When facing allegations of being a principal or accessory, you need experienced counsel. Jarrett Ambeau has tried high stakes criminal cases involving murder, drug conspiracies, and complex forensic evidence. He has handled over 50 felony jury trials and has specialized knowledge in forensic science and DNA. His team will examine whether prosecutors have sufficient evidence of intent, participation, and overt acts; challenge the use of hearsay or statements from co-conspirators; and explore defenses such as lack of agreement, withdrawal, duress, or entrapment.
Conclusion
Being labeled an accessory or principal can transform a minor role into a major criminal liability. Under Louisiana law, any person who knowingly participates in planning or committing a crime, or encourages or aids its commission, can be charged and punished as though they committed the act themselves. Specific intent and an overt act are key elements the state must prove, but courts allow circumstantial evidence and even trivial acts to satisfy these requirements. Defending against such accusations often turns on showing lack of intent, lack of participation, or withdrawal.
If you face charges as an accessory or principal, The Ambeau Law Firm is prepared to help. With a deep understanding of Louisiana criminal statutes and a track record in complex criminal defense, Jarrett Ambeau and his team will fight to protect your rights, challenge the evidence, and advocate for the most favorable outcome. Confronting allegations early and with experienced counsel is crucial to ensure you are not unjustly blamed for someone else’s wrongdoing.