CHAIRPERSON
It deals with common purpose.  There are certain guidelines in that case that explains how this common purpose works.  Now let's forget about in the past how the courts were interpreting that and how the convenient interpretations of it in the past.  Let's talk about today and how it should be interpreted.  Not for convenience but on a legal basis.  As I remember it, in order to be guilty on a crime based on common purpose, one must actively or psychically associate therewith, it's commission.  How do you say this applicant associated himself, he could not have associated himself physically because he was away from the incident.  So in order to be guilty based on common purpose he must have associated himself psychically.  How do you say that in this case?