Here is my question.
If jeffs can be convicted of accomplice to rape I believe they called it.
Dose his conviction open up other ministers to the same charge if they married a young girl (possibility a legal marriage) who becomes unhappy in the marriage later.
This is based on my belief that if the young lady had not been unhappy at some point she would of not fussed.
Well, under the same circumstances, obviously it would.
I would look for the judge's instructions to the jury in the Jeffs' case for a deeper understanding of what constituted being an "accomplice to rape" as I understand the charge.
I would guess that convicting a person of being an accomplice to a crime has several challenges due to the fact that the accomplice is not the main perpetrator of the crime. A person might be an "unwitting" accomplice and not even know that a crime was being committed. Such a person is probably not guilty of a crime unless they had some legal duty to perform at which they failed.
For this reason I would consider any parent who knowingly permits their daughter to "marry" below the legal age of consent is guilty of a crime, which might include being an accomplice to the crime of rape if sexual activity was a direct consequence of the "marriage".
Somebody who claimed to have the authority, whether religious or legal, to officiate at a marriage ceremony in such circumstances could also be considered an accomplice, assuming they should have known the age of the girl. In such a case, even if the marriage was invalid, there would be a legal duty to not perform such a marriage. This would assume that sexual activity was an expected consequence of performing the marriage ceremony. If the marriage was just a "spiritual marriage" with no sexual activity, then there might be a defense to a rape related charge.
The only relevance that the happiness or fussing of the "wife" in such cases would have is whether the crime comes to light. The girl has no say in whether she can marry below the age of consent. If the girl is over the age of consent, then the law should presume that she is competent to make the decision. She can change her mind later, but she is expected to bear the consequences of her earlier legal decision.