City of Auburn Accomplice Liability Case: Hedlund Ruling Explained
The City of Auburn accomplice liability case—City of Auburn v. Hedlund, 165 Wn.2d 645 (2009)—clarified a critical point in Washington criminal law: a victim of a crime cannot be held liable as an accomplice to that crime. The case involved a woman injured in a DUI crash and accused of facilitating the crime by giving the intoxicated driver her car keys.
Background of City of Auburn v. Hedlund
In this case, Hedlund was a passenger in a car driven by an intoxicated friend. After an accident, prosecutors charged her under Washington’s accomplice liability statute, RCW 9A.08.020. They claimed she “aided” the DUI and reckless driving by handing over her keys and knowingly riding with a drunk driver.
🔗 Read the full case on Casetext
The Legal Issue: Can a Victim Be an Accomplice?
The central question in the City of Auburn accomplice liability case was whether a person harmed by a crime can be prosecuted as if they helped commit it. Prosecutors argued Hedlund promoted or facilitated the driver’s criminal behavior.
But the defense maintained that she was not a willing participant and was in fact the victim of the crime.
The Washington Supreme Court’s Decision
The Washington Supreme Court ruled in Hedlund’s favor. It held that a victim cannot be charged as an accomplice to the very crime they suffered from. The Court emphasized that accomplice liability requires intent to promote or assist in committing a crime—something Hedlund did not have.
This decision reversed her conviction and made clear that victim status and accomplice liability are legally incompatible.
Impact of the City of Auburn Accomplice Liability Ruling
The City of Auburn accomplice liability case set a crucial precedent in Washington. It protects injured passengers in DUI or reckless driving cases from wrongful prosecution. It also limits prosecutorial overreach when trying to apply accomplice laws.
This case is frequently cited by Washington defense attorneys to defend individuals wrongly accused of aiding criminal activity when they were in fact victims.
Why This Case Matters in Washington Criminal Law
If you’re facing a charge under RCW 9A.08.020, the ruling in City of Auburn v. Hedlund could apply to your defense—especially if you’re accused of being involved in a crime where you were harmed. The case reinforces that accomplice charges require shared criminal intent, not mere presence or passive conduct.
Conclusion
The City of Auburn accomplice liability ruling is a clear win for fairness in Washington’s criminal justice system. It confirms that victims cannot be prosecuted as accomplices. If you or someone you know is facing a complex accomplice charge, the attorneys at Blanford Law are here to help.
