3d Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Criminal) 7.02

A person may be guilty of an offense(s) because (he) (she) personally

committed the offense(s) (himself) (herself) or because (he) (she) aided and abetted

another person in committing the offense. A person who has aided and abetted

another person in committing an offense is often called an accomplice. The person

whom the accomplice aids and abets is known as the principal.

In this case, the government alleges that (name of defendant) aided and abetted

(name of alleged principal, if known) in committing (state offense(s)) as charged in the

indictment. In order to find (name of defendant) guilty of (state offense(s)) because

(he) (she) aided and abetted (name of alleged principal) in committing (this) (these)

offense(s), you must find that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt

each of following four (4) requirements:

First: That (name of alleged principal) committed the offense(s) charged by

committing each of the elements of the offense(s) charged, as I have explained

those elements to you in these instructions. ((Name of alleged principal) need

not have been charged with or found guilty of the offense(s), however, as long as

you find that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (he) (she)

committed the offense(s)).

Second: That (name of defendant) knew that the offense(s) charged (was)

(were) going to be committed or (was) (were) being committed by (name of

alleged principal), and

9

Third: That (name of defendant) knowingly did some act for the purpose of

[aiding] [assisting] [soliciting] [facilitating] [encouraging] (name of alleged

principal) in committing the specific offense(s) charged and with the intent that

(name of alleged principal) commit that [those] specific offense(s), and

Fourth: That (name of defendant) performed an act(s) in furtherance of the

offense(s) charged.

In deciding whether (name of defendant) had the required knowledge and

intent to satisfy the third requirement for aiding and abetting, you may consider both

direct and circumstantial evidence including (name of defendant)’s words and actions

and the other facts and circumstances. However, evidence that (name) merely

associated with persons involved in a criminal venture or was merely present or was

merely a knowing spectator during the commission of the offense(s) is not enough for

you to find (name) guilty as an aider and abettor. If the evidence shows that (name)

knew that the offense was being committed or was about to be committed, but does

not also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was (name)’s intent and purpose to

[aid] [assist] [encourage] [facilitate] or otherwise associate (himself) (herself) with the

offense, you may not find (name) guilty of the offense(s) as an aider and abettor. The

government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (name) in some way

participated in the offense committed by (name of alleged principal) as something

(name of defendant) wished to bring about and to make succeed.

To show that (name of defendant) performed an act(s) in furtherance of the

10

offense(s) charged, to satisfy the fourth requirement, the government needs to show

some affirmative participation by (name) which at least encouraged (name of alleged

principal) to commit the offense. That is, you must find that (name of defendant)’s

act(s) did, in some way, [aid,] [assist,] [facilitate,] [encourage,] (name of alleged

principal) to commit the offense(s). (Name of defendant)’s act(s) need not further

[aid,] [assist,] [facilitate,] [encourage,] every part or phase (or element) of the

offense(s) charged; it is enough if (name of defendant)’s act(s) further [aid,] [assist,]

[facilitate,] [encourage,] only one (or some) part(s) or phase(s) (elements) of the

offense(s). Also, (name of defendant)’s acts need not themselves be against the law.