## Facts

- A young, unmarried pregnant woman, accompanied by her aunt, visited Dr. Howard Welcher, a practicing physician, at his office at 7900 Hudson Boulevard in North Bergen, New Jersey, seeking an abortion.
- Abortion was illegal, and Welcher refused to perform the procedure.
- Welcher nevertheless wrote down the name and telephone number of Jean Ellrich, who was not a medical doctor.
- Welcher instructed the woman to call the number from a pay phone across the street and to tell Ellrich that she was calling from “7900 Hudson Boulevard” (Welcher’s office address).
- The woman followed those instructions, contacted Ellrich, and arranged an appointment for an abortion.
- The woman and her aunt went to the Ellrich home in Fairview and made arrangements with Jean Ellrich and his wife, Mary Ellrich, paying a fee of $800 for the operation.
- When the woman later returned for the procedure, the attempt was interrupted by law enforcement before completion.
- At the officers’ request, a physician examined the woman and testified there had been an attempted abortion that was not successfully completed.
- Welcher, Jean Ellrich, and Mary Ellrich were indicted. On the day of Welcher’s trial, Jean and Mary Ellrich withdrew not-guilty pleas and entered *non vult* pleas.
- Welcher offered no evidence and did not testify. A jury found him guilty on the theory that he aided and abetted the attempted abortion.
- Welcher appealed, arguing that merely giving a name and number was insufficient to make him an accomplice and raising additional claims about the weight of the evidence and alleged trial errors. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the matter on certification.

## Issues

1. Whether a physician who refuses to perform an abortion but gives a pregnant woman an abortionist’s name and number and specific instructions to facilitate contact may be convicted as an aider and abettor to attempted abortion.
2. Whether the evidence permitted a finding that the physician acted with the intent required for accomplice liability rather than merely providing information.
3. Whether alleged errors regarding evidence and the jury charge required reversal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed Welcher’s conviction.
- The court held that the jury could find Welcher intentionally aided and abetted the attempted abortion by directing the woman to a specific person and giving instructions designed to secure that person’s acceptance and participation.
- The court rejected Welcher’s argument that he did no more than provide neutral information; the surrounding circumstances supported an inference of knowing assistance toward an unlawful end.
- The court found no reversible error in the challenged evidentiary rulings, the jury charge, or the trial court’s refusals to charge as requested.

## Legal Principles

- A person may be criminally liable as an accomplice without performing the criminal act, where the person knowingly assists, counsels, encourages, or otherwise helps bring about the offense.
- “Aiding and abetting” may be proved by acts that provide means or opportunity, when those acts are done with the purpose that the crime be committed.
- Intent for accomplice liability may be inferred from conduct and context, including purposeful direction to a particular wrongdoer and instructions that materially facilitate the planned offense.
- Questions about the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, including what inferences should be drawn from the proof, are generally for the jury when the record supports a reasonable finding of guilt.

## Conclusion

State v. Ellrich holds that a physician who refuses to perform an illegal abortion may still be convicted as an accomplice to attempted abortion when he knowingly facilitates the attempt by referring the pregnant woman to a specific abortionist and providing instructions calculated to connect the woman to the abortionist and help the unlawful plan proceed.


State v. Ellrich, 89 A.2d 685 (1952)