Alabama Law on “Aid and Abet”/Accessory

The Law
How has Miller not been charged with at least Accessory? By Alabama law he has a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, he/she fails to make an effort he/she is legally required to make. This needs to be looked at by the Highest Court in Alabama as a Cover up at the D.A office.
The Law
Accountability for Behavior of Another – Accessory
A person is accountable for the behavior of another constituting an offense if, with the intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense: [Read appropriate part]
(1) He/she procures, induces or causes the other person to commit the offense;
(2) He/she aids or abets the other person in committing the offense; [or]
(3) Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, he/she fails to make an effort he/she is legally required to make.
A person acts intentionally with respect to a result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense, when his/her purpose is to cause that result or to engage in that conduct. [13A-2-2(1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noreferrer">
“Aid or abet” is to help, assist, or facilitate the commission of a crime, promote the accomplishment thereof, help in advancing or bringing it about, or encourage, counsel, or incite as to its commission. (Black’s Law Dictionary)
“Aid and abet” comprehends all assistance rendered by acts or words of encouragement, support or presence, actual or constructive, to render assistance should it become necessary. Radke v. State, 292 Ala. 290, 293 So.2d 314 (1974).
The perpetrator can commit the crime though he/she may vary the mode or circumstances of the perpetration, or though no particular manner, time or place may have been counseled or instigated. Griffith v. State, 90 Ala. 583, 8 So. 812 (1891).
Mere presence at the scene, without more evidence, is not sufficient to prove complicity. See Hand v. State, 26 Ala. App. 317, 159 So. 275 (Ala. Cr. 1935).
No particular acts are necessary and it is sufficient to convict if the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was present with a view to render aid should it become necessary. Radke v. State, 292 Ala. 290, 293 So.2d 314 (1974).
The State has the burden of proof. The burden does not shift to the defendant.