Top Law Schools

Any tips on understanding accomplice liability? Having a realllll hard time with it.

With what, specifically?

Typically, accomplice liability requires both knowledge of the crime to be committed AND intent to aid.

Trouble with the differences between MPC and Common Law and how it is different from conspiracy, mostly.

From what I remember (took Crim in fall, miss it tremendously):

Conspiracy takes place when there is an agreement or understanding between two or more parties, express or implied, to commit a criminal act, and then an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy takes place. Conspiracy is a crime in and of itself, where each person is a principle actor. The violation of the law takes place instantly once the agreement is made + act in furtherance, whether or not the planned crime ever occurs or not.

The accomplice’s liability must rest on the violation of the law by the principal, the legal consequences of which he incurs because of his own actions. His liability is dependent on the principal violating the law.

As far as MPC and Common Law in Accomplice, I think the major difference was that under the MPC the accomplice need only ATTEMPT to help, where as under the Common Law, his intent must be combined with ACTUALLY helping.

Read Dressler

uwb09 wrote:From what I remember (took Crim in fall, miss it tremendously):

Conspiracy takes place when there is an agreement or understanding between two or more parties, express or implied, to commit a criminal act, and then an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy takes place. Conspiracy is a crime in and of itself, where each person is a principle actor. The violation of the law takes place instantly once the agreement is made + act in furtherance, whether or not the planned crime ever occurs or not.

The accomplice’s liability must rest on the violation of the law by the principal, the legal consequences of which he incurs because of his own actions. His liability is dependent on the principal violating the law.

As far as MPC and Common Law in Accomplice, I think the major difference was that under the MPC the accomplice need only ATTEMPT to help, where as under the Common Law, his intent must be combined with ACTUALLY helping.

Right. MPC punishes attempt to aid, whether or not the principal even knew you had attempted to aid them.

While intent to aid the principal in furtherance of the criminal objective is the majority requirement, some jurisdictions will attach accomplice liability for knowing aid for serious crimes, or substantial support.

There's a lot of nuance to accomplice liability. Interesting stuff, really. At CL, you couldn't be convicted as a principal in the second degree or accessory before the fact unless the principal was convicted. Now, you can be convicted even if the principal gets off. It doesn't make for intellectually satisfying symmetry, but it works.

Depending on your prof, you might need to learn the categories.

Also, as someone else said, conspiracy is a separate substantive crime. The agreement (or intent to enter into an agreement), plus the overt act (may be slight), completes the crime.

There are also differences in withdrawal and abandonment. That's all I have though for now, I have a Conlaw final tomorrow.

Check out Dressler for sure.

AppsAbound wrote:Read Dressler

yes. just do this. it's annoying, especially if the exam is coming up soon. but this will likely help more than what anyone has to offer here.