Brief Fact Summary. Defendants appealed from a conviction to conspire for bribery arguing that the appropriate vicarious criminal liability standard was not applied.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The state has met its burden of proof if it can demonstrate that the corporation has placed the agent in a position where he has enough authority and responsibility to act for and on behalf of the corporation.
Issue. Whether the proper standard for vicarious corporate criminal liability was applied in the case at bar.
The appropriate analysis is to direct the jury to look at the authority vested in the agent by the corporation to act within the particular sphere of corporate affairs relating the criminal act in conjunction with the instructions given to the agent with respect to that act.
Criminal acts are not usually made the subject of votes of ratification. Thus the jury can properly infer ratification from other evidence.
Where a conspiracy contemplates a continuity of purpose and a continued performance of acts, it is presumed to exist until there has been an affirmative showing that it has terminated; and its members continue to be conspirators until there has been an affirmative showing that they have withdrawn.View Full Point of Law