## Facts

- Marathon Poplar associated with Alfred Williams and Clifford Lorrick in the hours preceding a breaking and entering at a recreation building in Flint, Michigan.
- The group drove around, obtained tools, placed them behind the building, and made an unsuccessful entry attempt.
- While driving, a shotgun in the car accidentally discharged, damaging the windshield; this made Poplar aware that a shotgun was present.
- In the early morning, Williams and Lorrick returned to the building and entered it.
- According to Lorrick (who later pled guilty to a related offense and testified for the prosecution), Poplar went to a house across the street to see if anyone was watching, consistent with a lookout role.
- The building manager discovered Williams and Lorrick inside; Williams shot the manager in the face with the shotgun.
- Poplar denied involvement in any criminal plan and claimed he went across the street to look for a friend who could help him find employment.
- Poplar was tried as an aider and abettor and, after denial of directed-verdict motions, was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering and assault with intent to commit murder.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit to the jury, and sustain, Poplar’s conviction as an aider and abettor for breaking and entering based on an alleged lookout role and surrounding circumstances.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit to the jury, and sustain, Poplar’s conviction as an aider and abettor for assault with intent to commit murder, a specific-intent offense, where Poplar did not fire the shot.

## Decision

- The court held it was not error to deny a directed verdict on the breaking and entering count; the evidence permitted a finding that Poplar aided and abetted as a lookout.
- The court held it was not error to deny a directed verdict on the assault-with-intent-to-murder count; the evidence permitted a finding that Poplar could be liable as an aider and abettor under the specific-intent standard.
- The convictions were affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- A conviction as an aider and abettor requires evidence from which a jury may find intentional assistance or encouragement of the charged offense.
- For crimes requiring specific intent, an aider and abettor cannot be convicted as a principal unless the aider either:
  - possessed the required specific intent, or
  - aided and abetted knowing the actual perpetrator possessed the required specific intent.
- Circumstantial evidence and accomplice testimony may be sufficient to support submission to the jury and sustain a conviction where the jury could reasonably infer participation and the required mental state.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Poplar’s convictions, holding that evidence of his participation in the preparatory events and alleged lookout conduct supported aider-and-abettor liability for breaking and entering, and that an aider may be convicted of a specific-intent offense when the jury can infer the aider shared the intent or acted with knowledge of the principal’s intent, including from awareness of a weapon and continued participation in the enterprise.


People v. Poplar, 173 N.W.2d 732 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)