Portuguese court holds accomplice liability requires prior aid, not post-crime benefit appropriation.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court of Justice rejected the prosecution's appeal regarding an accomplice to a property crime. The prosecution argued that the defendant's act of appropriating the stolen goods constituted complicity under Article 330 of the Penal Code. The court ruled that such appropriation only occurs after the crime's consummation and does not establish prior complicity under Article 27. Consequently, the conviction for complicity was dismissed as the evidence failed to prove the defendant aided the principal offender before the theft was completed.
Legislator headnote
OfficialROUBO CUMPLICIDADE AUXILIO MATERIAL EM CRIME CONTRA O PATRIMONIO
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedFull text
[Nº CONVENCIONAL] JSTJ00004475
[Nº DO DOCUMENTO] SJ199010250410283
[PRIVACIDADE] 1
[PROCESSO NO TRIBUNAL RECURSO] 317/89
[TEXTO INTEGRAL] N
[TRIBUNAL RECURSO] T J OEIRAS
[URL] https://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/633686178ADDB4FE802568FC003981B7?OpenDocument
SUMÁRIO
I - Nos termos do artigo 27 do Codigo Penal de 1982, e considerado cumplice aquele que dolosamente auxiliar outrem na pratica de um crime quando, sem esse auxilio, a execução seria levada a cabo em tempo, lugar ou circunstancias diversas.
II - So a conduta de quem auxiliar outrem a aproveitar-se do beneficio da coisa obtida atraves de crime contra o patrimonio preenche o tipo legal do crime previsto no artigo 330 do Codigo Penal de 1982, conduta aquela que tem de ser posterior a consumação deste crime.