Lena, who was angry with her business law teacher, Dominick, because of a hard test, angrily watched him come into the restaurant where she worked as a server. She noticed that he had on his new designer suit, the one he wore when he wanted to impress the chancellor. Lena completely lost her temper, threw a drink on Dominick, and then reached across the table and punched him in the eye. The police were called. Dominick says that he wants both Lena and the owner of the restaurant, Aaliyah, arrested. Assuming that Lena committed the crimes of assault and battery, is Aaliyah also criminally responsible? Provide reasoning in support of the conclusion.

If an agent commits a crime, clearly the agent is liable for the crime. If the agent commits the crime in the scope of employment for a principal without the principal's authorization, the principal is not liable for the agent's crime. One of the elements establishing that a crime has been committed is intent. If a principal is unaware of or had no intent for the agent to commit a crime, there is no rationale for the principal's criminal liability. The only time the principal can be liable for the crime of an agent is when the principal has authorized the criminal act. Therefore, Lena is criminally responsible for her acts, not Aaliyah. Even though Lena was at work while she committed these acts, Lena did not have Aaliyah's authorization.