Posted: May 18th, 2017

Schultz came home to find his wife, Ruth, very upset. When he asked her what was wrong, she told him that an auto shop employee had yelled at her when she had her car inspected earlier that afternoon. Schultz was furious and stopped by the auto shop the next day.

Schultz came home to find his wife, Ruth, very upset. When he asked her what was wrong, she told him that an auto shop employee had yelled at her when she had her car inspected earlier that afternoon. Schultz was furious and stopped by the auto shop the next day. He asked to speak with the manager and demanded to know the name of the employee on duty the previous afternoon. The manager told Schultz the employee’s name and Schultz reported the incident. The manager seemed unconcerned and Schultz got the impression 13 that the manager did not believe the story. Before Schultz left the shop he said, “If you won’t do anything about this, then I will!” He looked up the employee’s address and went to his house to confront him about the incident. After the employee denied ever yelling at Schultz’s wife, Schultz punched the employee. The blow knocked him out and he had to be treated for a concussion at the local hospital. Can the manager of the auto shop be convicted as a party to the battery under the modern approach? (A) Yes. The manager supplied Schultz with the name of the employee. Without knowing the employee’s name, Schultz could not have found out where he lived. (B) Yes. Not only did the manager supply Schultz with the employee’s name, but he was well aware of Schultz’s intentions because of the statement he made before leaving the auto shop. (C) No. Merely supplying the name of the employee is not sufficient aid for accomplice liability. (D) No. The manager was unaware of Schultz’s intent to assault the employee at the time the manager gave out the employee’s name.