Whether a theory of criminal liability based on complicity in an uncharged crime is constitutional

No question identified. : —Qhuestan Fresented — L Can Grimine! Mability fora charged offense be hase “pon Phe Hetencan?s conpllerty nan flonase which B clearly distinct bros any Sayyed! ofbose, and which js vot tr ang vay alleged v2 the , Adictoert Bar ofter choy ly Jasheament > clr , aloes Ps Violate Phe Notice Clause of the 6™ vcadinert, the Crond Tory Clause of the 5” Aerdment, or Phe Due Process Clauses of Pe 5 and HO Porendments? | DitrodlecHen ? Fern A and Férson B go , bo bay Aeags thom Porson CO. Fason A isha to beg . The drags. Person B Atends po rob Person € for phe clrags. Person A does rot brow of thls plao, : When Fen A andl Pev0n Breet ep with Fé900 C, — Fex00 Byulls 2uha gun, Faroe Crest, ak 7 Férsen B shoots and hilt: Férson Co Férsons A and B are Charged with ateryted acred robbery ard , parder, Fey are net charged with ang drag related — insts. Thirking Masell innocent of the charged othenses, Féran A goes to tial and 71s defense theory , . Js Pat Ae anly intended 7 bug the Dregs. | THis cast. /s about whetter ar not 1? vould be unconsh}abinel te Mastek toe fury at FErso0 A's trial fn arraner whit cowl allows Prem fo tind biimf her Mable tor foe achons at person B, so long as , . tty fod agreed poomta rag otbase Yogetbir, , ard P2r%0n BE achins firbeced bead objechie. The questan prescated ben also dap heases wheter ; or not jt would be unconstiubioral tor an appelaite court fo decide Hap Fo rsan Ais agr