Complicity in a Crime of Murder

Classification of Crimes
Joe should be charged with murder, since he wielded the murder weapon. As it was a drive-by shooting, multiple shots were fired and another person was injured, the charges should include capital murder, and attempted capital murder. Larry, who served as an accomplice in the drive-by shooting, should also be charged with the same crimes, as he assisted in them by driving the car. Even though he did not operate the murder weapon, he was complicit in the act and enabled it to happen. Thus, the same charges that are leveled at Joe should also be leveled at Larry. They could also be charged with conspiracy to commit the crime, as it was premeditated.
As for Bob, he heard what the plan was and promptly quit the vehicle at the first chance he could. However, he did not attempt to stop what was about to happen and did not attempt to alert the would-be victims. Does this also make him complicit in the crimes or caused him to have accomplice liability? After all, one of the characteristics of accomplice liability is the failure to prevent a crime from happening that one knows is about to happen (Mitchell, 2000). Bob might have hollered at the targets to alert them—but this might have caused him to be assaulted in turn. He might also not have had any time to alert the targets whatsoever. The details are not exactly clear. Depending on how Bob’s situation is described and defended, he could be charged with being an accomplice but it is unlikely—especially if he were to cooperate with prosecutors—that he would be convicted.
Joe and Larry certainly demonstrated actus reus—i.e., acting with sound mind and body to commit a crime voluntarily of their own free will (Mueller, 1987). Bob, however, does not demonstrated actus reus: he leaves the car and did not anticipate himself being in this situation. Did Bob have mens rea, as both Joe and Larry certainly did? Bob knew for a moment that the crime was to be committed and his first thought was to get away from the scene rather than try to prevent it—so it could be argued that he had mens rea. However, as Lehman and Phelps (2008) point out, “criminal statutes generally require proof of both actus reus and mens rea on the part of a defendant in order to establish criminal liability.”
In order of seriousness, I would classify the crimes of each of the individuals in the above scenario in this manner: Joe’s crime is the most serious, as it was his idea, and he had the murder weapon; followed by Larry who facilitated the murder/murder attempt by driving the car; followed by Bob who may or may not have been complicit even though he abandoned the car before the shooting started.
According to my state’s criminal code, Texas law, capital murder is punishable by death—i.e., capital punishment. Joe and Larry would certainly qualify to be sentenced with capital punishment were they found guilty of capital murder. Bob, however, would likely be charged with a lesser crime if anything at all depending on his defense (and he could argue that he kept silence out of self-defense as well plus that it was an accident that he was in the car with the other gang members in the first place when they hatched their plan to commit murder).
The crimes would be considered crimes against persons. Crimes against property could potentially be argued if it was alleged that the assailants were also targeting to harm the intended’s property. Crimes against public order would be unlikely as this was not a case of intoxication or vandalism but rather a premeditated violent assault on identified persons.
References
Lehman, J., Phelps, S. (2008). West’s Encyclopedia of American Law. MI: Gale.
Mitchell, A. D. (2000). Failure to Halt, Prevent or Punish: The Doctrine of Command
Responsibility for War Crimes. Sydney L. Rev., 22, 381.
Mueller, G. E. (1987). The Mens Rea of Accomplice Liability. S. Cal. L. Rev., 61, 2169.