1. • HYPOTHETICAL: P (principle)
commits a crime and A
(accomplice) helps him in some
way. If P completes the
crime, but P has a defense (let’s
say insanity), can A still be liable
for the crime as an accomplice?
QUESTION

2. • It depends on the jurisdiction’s view of
the source of accomplice liability.
◦ Common Law: accomplice liability
derives from the principal’s liability
(extended to those who assist);
◦ Modern Law: accomplice liability is
personal to the accomplice (doesn’t
depend on the principal’s liability
ANSWER

3.  How far does the accomplice’s
assistance have to go for liability to
attach?
QUESTION

4. ◦ It depends upon the approach:
Common Law: Required that the
accomplice assist the perpetrator
in committing the offense
Modern Law: Doesn’t even require
actual assistance; agreeing to
assist or attempting to assist is
enough to find complicity
ANSWER

5.  Can you be an accomplice to
someone who doesn’t know that you
are trying to help them?
QUESTION

6. ◦ Under the modern law
approach, the principal’s knowledge
of assistance is not necessary.
◦ Under the common law
approach, the issue is whether or
not the “accomplice” actually
helped, regardless of whether the
principal knows of their assistance.
ANSWER

7.  What level of culpability must the
accomplice have?

8. ◦ Common Law: requires some level
of intent to be an accomplice
(typically purpose unless the
statute following the common law
defines intent as also knowledge)
◦ MPC has adopted “purposeful” as
the culpability requirement for
complicity in the conduct of the
offense
ANSWER