Question 1: X is guilty of burglary in Virginia according to the Virginia burglary statute because he committed the crime with intent when he entered the building in the first place and by also using force by breaking in the window, both are felonies that constitute a guilty verdict, according to page 393.
X is also guilty of common law larceny according to the law because his intent is to steal the computer with no intent on returning it, he is taking personal property of another person. According to common law, he would be guilty because he is showing intent to take an item without the knowledge of the other person, showing intent to steal, leading to the guilty conviction according to the common law larceny.
According to the Rockmore case,
…show more content…
The principal states that those are guilty when the individuals who help prepare for the crime, and that they are not physically or constructively present during the crime. In this case, P was present in the crime and they did not plan this out prior to anything because it was a bar fight gone wrong and was spontaneous.
Part B) P is liable under the law in the second degree based on P’s presence and actions during the fight principals in the second degree which states that the person is guilty if he is assisting individuals/perpetrators during the fight which is what P is guilty of, and it requires the person to be physically or constructively present. P during the fight constantly shouts encouragement towards the individual (x) during the fight. The words that he says angers X leading to a large crowd gathering near the area to watch the
…show more content…
The law states that regardless of whether a “purposive or knowledge” standard is employed, an accomplice is subject to the natural and probable consequences doctrine. This states that a person encouraging or facilitating the commission of a crime is held liable as an accomplice for the crime he or she aided and abetted as well for crimes that are the natural and probable outcome of a criminal conduct, like the seizure and death of Y was natural, but P is still liable for the death because he was encouraging X to fight Y and that led to the death of Y in this case, so he is guilty of it according to the