First of all, that’s incorrect. Texas law, like a number of states, has done away with the common law distinctions between accessory, accessory after the fact, accomplices and principals. Those concepts have instead been replaced by a more streamlined version of rules for when one person is criminally liable for the conduct of another. See Chapter 7 of the Texas Penal Code. Simply being present with someone at the time a crime is committed does not make you criminally liable for his conduct. As the Texas Court of Appeals explains in a case decided in 2016:
Further, “it must be shown that, in addition to the illegal conduct by the primary actor, the accused harbored the specific intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense.” Barnes, 62 S.W.3d at 296; see Richardson, 879 S.W.2d at 882. The accused must know that he was assisting in commission of the offense. Barnes, 62 S.W.3d at 296; see Amaya v. State, 733 S.W.2d 168, 174–75 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). This “agreement, if any, must be before or contemporaneous with the criminal event.” Barnes, 62 S.W.3d at 296 (emphasis in original); see Beier v. State, 687 S.W.2d 2, 3–4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). “The evidence must show that at the time of the commission of the offense, the parties were acting together, each doing some part of the execution of the common design.” See Barnes, 62 S.W.3d at 297 (emphasis in original).
“The State must show more than mere presence to establish participation in a criminal offense.” Id. (citing Valdez v. State, 623 S.W.2d 317, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)). The accused's “[m]ere presence or even knowledge of an offense does not make [him] a party to the offense.” Barnes, 62 S.W.3d at 297; see Oaks v. State, 642 S.W.2d 174, 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982).
Rivera v. State, 507 S.W.3d 844, 856–57 (Tex. App. 2016), petition for discretionary review refused (Mar. 8, 2017)(bolding added).
Thus, the state cannot win merely by showing that the daughter was present with the perpetrators of the crime. It must show that she was a party to the criminal enterprise; i.e. the state needs to show she knew and agreed in advance to participate in the crime.
The problem for concernedmomma28 is that she is relying on what her daughter has told her as to what happened, and it is possible that the daughter is either not telling her everything or lying to her as to what happened. In any event, I agree that if she wants to help her daughter she can arrange for her daughter to be represented by a lawyer and can help to raise the bail money when bail is set.