## Facts

- William Collins proposed that Parnell enter a building at night and steal money Collins knew was hidden there, with the proceeds to be divided between them.
- Parnell reported the proposal to the sheriff, who instructed Parnell—after consulting the district attorney—to feign agreement and proceed so Collins could be caught.
- The sheriff arranged for the money to be marked (with acid) and for Parnell to signal when delivering money to Collins, enabling arrest with marked money in Collins’s possession.
- Parnell entered the building at night, took the money, marked it, delivered a portion to Collins, gave the signal, and the sheriff arrested Collins while Collins possessed the marked money.
- The trial court instructed the jury that if Collins and Parnell agreed Parnell would enter and steal the money to divide it with Collins, and Parnell did so, the jury should convict Collins “without regard” to the role of the sheriff or Parnell.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant who counsels and procures a nighttime entry and theft may be convicted as a principal in burglary when the person who physically enters acts in cooperation with law enforcement and lacks felonious intent.
2. Whether the entrant’s absence of criminal intent negates the procuring defendant’s liability for burglary.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the burglary conviction.
- The court held Collins could be convicted as a principal because he acted with felonious intent and caused the entry and theft through an agent acting on his advice.
- The court ruled it was immaterial that Parnell entered without criminal intent due to his cooperation with law enforcement.
- By affirming, the court upheld the challenged jury instruction as consistent with the theory that Collins committed the burglary through an innocent instrumentality.

## Legal Principles

- A person who, with the requisite criminal intent, procures another to perform the physical acts of a crime may be liable as a principal even if the actor lacks criminal intent.
- Under an innocent-agent (instrumentality) theory, the procuring defendant’s mens rea and causal direction can supply principal liability for crimes requiring an act performed by another.
- In such cases, the law enforcement cooperation or innocent motive of the physical actor does not defeat liability when the defendant intended and brought about the prohibited entry and taking.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Collins’s burglary conviction because he intentionally solicited and directed a nighttime entry and theft and thereby committed the offense through an innocent agent, making the entrant’s cooperation with the sheriff and lack of criminal intent legally irrelevant to Collins’s principal liability.


People v. Collins, 53 Cal. 185 (Cal. 1878)