This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Outlines Criminal Law Outlines

Accomplice Liability Outline

Updated Accomplice Liability Notes

Criminal Law Outlines

Criminal Law

Approximately 94 pages

Criminal Law with Professor Rachel Barkow at NYU School of Law.

This is a synthesis of all topics in a fall 2019 class, Criminal Law at NYU School of Law. My notes consist of the important elements of each doctrine, the unsettled areas, and policy justifications....

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Criminal Law Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Accountability for the Acts of Others/Accomplice Liability

  • Punishment

    • Accomplice charged as if he/she committed crime itself; charged with same crime as person who actually committed the crime

  • Types of accomplice

    • Accomplice less culpable than principal (lookout/bank robber)

    • Accomplice more culpable than principal (seller/distributor)

  • Cannot impose individual criminal vicarious liability - violates due process

    • Guminga: cannot convict store owner with vicarious liability if he did not know or authorize the waitress giving alcohol to minors

      • Also cannot impose vicarious parental liability (encourage oversight and deter juvenile crime VS. encourages overly restrictive parenting and disproportionate enforcement on poor single parents)

      • But criminal entity (corporate) liability ok

    • Policy: people have free will and cannot control each other

  • Requirements: mens rea + actus reus (NOT causation)

(ACCOMPLICE) COMMON LAW - MENS REA

MR does most of the work because actus reus is minimal

  • Conduct: purpose

    • D must intend to aid and encourage the commission of the crime

    • Hicks (Native American trio)/Gladstone (directions to marijuana seller, did not associate himself with the centure) - knowledge of conduct is not enough, need intention that the conduct will be committed

    • Note: line between knowledge and intent is difficulty to draw

    • Evidence of purpose

      • Verbal evidence/words of encouragement

      • Recorded writing - diary or letter

      • Financial support to principal/financial stake

      • Personal interest/stake of accomplice in commission of crime

      • Associating oneself with the venture

      • Prior negative relationship with the victim (old enemy)

      • Contextual clues/deviation from normal behavior

      • Offer specialized help

    • Knowledge

    • Minority jx: knowledge that conduct will occur is sufficient if crime is serious

      • Fountain - D knows that handing the knife to fellow inmate will cause inmate to stab and skill prison guard

      • Policy: deterring commission of serious crimes

    • If no Fountain, infer intent from serious crime:

      • Argue that no one would assist someone else in the serious crime unless they intended for the conduct to happen

        • More serious the crime, more likely to infer intent

      • Show thus knowledge plus

        • Stake in the venture

        • No legitimate use of goods or services

        • Volume of goods or services have no legitimate use

    • Legislative equivalent of Fountain - Some states have passed statutes that only require knowledge for conduct (NY 115.05)

      • Criminal facilitation if believing that he/she probably rendering aid to class A felony, engages in conduct providing means and opportunity for commission

      • This is often used to charge romantic partners and family members of offender

    • What counts as serious crime?

      • Crimes involves materials that have no lawful purpose

      • Crimes involves materials of such quantity that they have no lawful purpose

  • Attendant Circumstances: Ambiguous

    • MPC: Ambiguous, court can decide whether to use (1) same mens rea or (2) purpose/knowledge depending on the case

      • Ex. B gives A gun without knowing A is a felon and cannot possess guns (AC) & mens rea for this AC in underlying crime is SL

    • Consider whether the A and P have the same basis of knowledge by looking at the facts/circumstances of the case

    • Policy for same mens rea

      • SAME basis of knowledge (due to presence, conversation etc.)

        • Ex. If bank is AC in robbery offense, know that it is a bank from the conversation, presence not necessary

      • Encourage both principal and accomplices to investigate and do due diligence (of age, felon status, etc.)

      • Type of attendant circumstance that does not require special knowledge/presence to make a judgement

      • Deterrence effect - prevent harm by deterring careless behavior

      • Invoke legislative policies for the MR of the underlying crime

        • Age is AC, legislative purpose to protect young people from sexual exploitation

    • Policy for awareness

      • DIFFERENT basis of knowledge/different level of awareness (warrants higher MR) (due to non presence etc.)

        • Ex. If age if AC in rape offense, don't know that person is underage because not present/proximate and cannot see her (unlike the principal)

        • Ex. If felon status is AC in gun possession offense, don't know that the person has felon status (unlike the principal)

      • Don't want place excessive burden on accomplish of investigating, not put liability on people with no conscious wrongdoing

      • If AC requires prior knowledge/presence at crime scene

      • Worry about aiders who does not have all the information

      • Principal is on more notice/in better position to know the AC than the accomplice

  • Result: Underlying

    • Same MR as the underlying crime

    • McVay/ Roebuck

    • Minority jx: you cannot be accomplice to a reckless/negligent crime

    • Problematic application in felony murder

      • Felony murder mens rea for result is strict liability

      • If participate in felony and death results, even if did not participate in killing, guilty of felony murder as accomplice

  • Luparello/minority - natural and probable consequences doctrine

    • RULE: If accomplice puts criminal act into motion > subsequent crimes done by the principal are the natural and probable consequences of defendant's actions > accomplice is liable even if he did not intend the result

    • Luparello - D tells friends to locate ex lover at any costs > subsequent killing by principal > liable for 1st degree murder as accomplice

    • Criticism: holds people responsible for things they did not intend

    • Policy:

      • Harm based - punish because contributed to harm

      • Deterrence - deter people from putting criminal act in motion OR deter them from doing so carelessly

    • Effect: like FM but more expansive, can mix and match crimes

    • MPC rejects Luparello

    • Luparello analysis

    • Did principal commit target offense?

    • Is defendant accomplice to target offense?

    • Did principal commit additional crime that...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Law Outlines.