Accompliace Liability

Question 1

Culpable Conduct of Solicitation

Answer 1

Solicitation of another to commit a crime

Question 2

Culpable conduct of Conspiracy

Answer 2

Agreement between two or more people to commit a crime

Question 3

Culpable Conduct of Attempt

Answer 3

Performance of an act that would be a crime if successful

Question 4

Mental State of Solicitation

Answer 4

Specific Intent that person solicited commit the crime

Question 5

Mental state of conspiracy

Answer 5

Specific Intent to: (1) enter into agreement (2) achieve objective

Question 6

Mental State of Attempt

Answer 6

Specific Intent to commit the particular crime attempted

Question 7

Overt Act for Solicitation

Answer 7

None

Question 8

Overt Act for Conspiracy

Answer 8

Common Law: None
MPC: Act in furtherance of the conspiracy

Question 9

Overt Act Attempt

Answer 9

Common law: Proximity test
MPC: Substantial Step Test

Question 10

Solicitation: Merger into Substantive offense?

Answer 10

Yes

Question 11

Conspiracy: Merger into Substantive Offense?

Answer 11

No

Question 12

Attempt: Merger into Substantive Offense?

Answer 12

Yes

Question 13

Is withdrawal a defense in solicitation?

Answer 13

Generally, no

Question 14

Is withdrawal a defense in conspiracy?

Answer 14

Generally, no, except for further crimes of coconspirators

Question 15

Is withdrawal a defense in attampt?

Answer 15

Common law: No
MPC: Voluntary and complete

Question 16

Does mere presence at a crime scene even coupled with a refusal to interfere amount to aiding in the commission of a criminal offense?

Answer 16

No

Question 17

Mere presence at a crime scene even coupled with a refusal to interfere does not amount to aiding in the commission of a criminal offense. However,

Answer 17

Mere encouragement is enough

Question 18

________________ is the equivalent of conduct that by any means countenances or approves the criminal action of another,, “including “encouraging or exciting a criminal act by words, gestures, looks, or signs.”

Answer 18

Encouragement

Question 19

Associating with the person who committed the crime before, during, or after the crime

Answer 19

Factors to consider in deciding if someone has provided encouragement for a criminal act.

Question 20

Acting as part of a show of force in the commission of the crime

Answer 20

Factors to consider in deciding if someone has provided encouragement for a criminal act.

Question 21

Attempting flight from the crime scene

Answer 21

Factors to consider in deciding if someone has provided encouragement for a criminal act.

Question 22

Failing to assist the victim or seek medical help

Answer 22

Factors to consider in deciding if someone has provided encouragement for a criminal act.

Question 23

1. Associating with the person who committed the crime before, during, or after the crime
2. Acting as part of a show of force in the commission of the crime;
3. Attempting flight from the crime scene; and
4. Failing to assist the victim or seek medical help

Answer 23

Factors to consider in deciding if someone has provided encouragement for a criminal act.

Question 24

Crimes often involve multiple parties. At common law the parties to a crime were divided as follows:
1. Principles in the first degree:

Answer 24

Persons who actually engaged in the act or omission that constitutes the offense

Question 25

Crimes often involve multiple parties. At common law the parties to a crime were divided as follows:
2. Principles in the second degree:

Answer 25

Persons who aided, advised, or encouraged the principal and were present at the crime;

Question 26

Crimes often involve multiple parties. At common law the parties to a crime were divided as follows:
3. Accessories before the fact:

Answer 26

Persons who assisted or encouraged but were not present at the crime; and

Question 27

Crimes often involve multiple parties. At common law the parties to a crime were divided as follows:
4. Accessories after the fact:

Answer 27

Persons who, with knowledge that the other committed a crime, assisted them to escape arrest or punishment

Question 28

The modern approach does away with the difference between principals and accessories before the fact, treating them all as __________ in the crime and imposing the same _________.

Answer 28

Principles
Punishment

Question 29

Under the modern approach, a person who __________ _________or ___________ the commission of a crime is guilty of the crime for which they provided assistance or encouragement.

Answer 29

provides assistance

encourages

Question 30

An _______ ________ the ________ (one who assists another knowing they have committed a crime in order to help them escape) is still treated separately. This is a separate crime with its punishment usually having no relationship to the principal offense.

Answer 30

Accessory after
Fact

Question 31

An accessory after the fact (one who assists another knowing they have committed a crime is order to help them escape) is still treated separately. This is a _________ ________ with its punishment usually having no relationship to the principal offense.

Answer 31

Separate offense

Question 32

Under the __________ ________approach, conviction of the principal was required for conviction of an accessory.

Answer 32

common law

Question 33

The modern approach treats all parties to a crime as _________; therefore, they are punishable for their criminal conduct regardless of the outcome for the other parties.

Answer 33

Principles

Question 34

When there are multiple defendants, the prosecution has to prove its theory of criminal culpability (principal or accessory) _____________________.

Answer 34

beyond a reasonable doubt.

Question 35

When there are multiple defendants, the prosecution has to prove its theory of criminal culpability (principal or accessory) beyond a reasonable doubt. But when it is unknown who actually committed the crime, the prosecution can charge a defendant as both the __________ and an ___________.

Answer 35

Principal and an accessory

Question 36

When there are multiple defendant’s, the prosecution has to prove its theory of criminal culpability (principal or accessory) beyond a reasonable doubt. But when it is unknown who actually committed the crime, the prosecution can charge a defendant as both the principal and an accessory. The jury can return a guilty verdict so long as the evidence supports either basis for criminal culpability because the distinction between_________ and ________ is not relevant to the punishment.

Answer 36

principal

accessory

Question 37

____________ (_____________) is a defense to accessory liability.

Answer 37

Withdrawal (abandonment)

Question 38

Withdrawal abandonment is a defense to accessory liability. The withdrawal:
A.
B.
C.
D.

Answer 38

A. Must occur before the crime becomes unstoppable

Question 39

Withdrawal abandonment is a defense to accessory liability. The withdrawal:
A.
B. ?
C.
D.

Answer 39

If the person encouraged the crime, they must repudiate the encouragement

Question 40

Withdrawal abandonment is a defense to accessory liability. The withdrawal:
A.
B.
C. ?
D.

Answer 40

If the person aided by providing assistance to the principal, they must do everything possible to attempt to neutralize the assistance (such as attempt to retrieve materials given to the principal); and

Question 41

Withdrawal abandonment is a defense to accessory liability. The withdrawal:
A.
B.
C.
D. ?

Answer 41

Notifying the police or taking other action to prevent the crime is also sufficient.

Question 42

A mere __________ from involvement without taking any additional action is not sufficient.

Answer 42

Withdrawal

Question 43

__________ __________ requires “more than evidence of a general cognizance of criminal activity or suspicious circumstances.

Answer 43

Accessory liability

Question 44

It requires the government to prove “that the underlying crime was committed by a person other than the defendant and that the defendant acted, or failed to act in a way that the law required him to act, with the specific purpose of bringing about the underlying crime.”

Answer 44

Accessory Liability

Question 45

In accesssory liability: to show specific intent/purpose, “the government must show that he

Answer 45

Knew of the proposed crime

Question 46

Conversations directly related to the substance of the illegal activity

Answer 46

The government can use circumstantial evidence to prove the required knowledge and specific intent.

Question 47

Possession of documents related to the crime

Answer 47

The government can use circumstantial evidence to prove the required knowledge and specific intent.

Question 48

Exercise of authority within a conspiracy

Answer 48

The government can use circumstantial evidence to prove the required knowledge and specific intent.

Question 49

Receiving a share of the profits from the deal; or

Answer 49

The government can use circumstantial evidence to prove the required knowledge and specific intent.

Question 50

Explicit confirmation of the nature of the crime.

Answer 50

The government can use circumstantial evidence to prove the required knowledge and specific intent.

Question 51

In general, accomplices liability requires _________ ________.

Answer 51

Dual intent

Question 52

In general, accomplice liability requires dual intent;
1.
2.

Answer 52

1. The intent to assist the principal in the commission of a crime; and
2. The intent that the principal commit the underlying crime.

Question 53

If the crime is one recklessness or negligence, the second intent is replaced with recklessness or negligence (whichever is required by the particular crime). True or False

Answer 53

True

Question 54

Like the _________ ________, rule, accompliace are criminally culpable for the crimes they aided and for any other crimes committed in the courts of that crime when the other crimes were probable or foreseeable.

Answer 54

Pinkerton Rule