A man knows his roommate is a skilled cat burglar who plans to burglarize a specific house that night. The roommate mentions that he needs a ride to the neighborhood. The man, wanting to get his roommate out of the house so he can host a party, gives him a ride and drops him off a block away from the targeted house. The roommate subsequently commits the burglary.
Under the majority rule and the Model Penal Code, is the man liable as an accomplice to the burglary?
No, because he was not present at the scene of the burglary when it was committed.
Yes, because providing the means for the principal to get to the crime scene constitutes substantial encouragement.
No, because his primary motivation was to host a party, not to assist in the burglary.
Yes, because he knowingly provided assistance that contributed to the commission of the crime.
No, the man is not liable as an accomplice because he did not act with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the burglary. For accomplice liability, the majority of jurisdictions and the Model Penal Code require that the defendant not only provide assistance (the actus reus) but also act with the specific intent or purpose to have the crime succeed (the mens rea). In this case, the man provided assistance (the ride), but his purpose was to get his roommate out of the house for a party, not to help the burglary succeed. Mere knowledge that his actions would assist a crime is insufficient to establish accomplice liability under this standard.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What constitutes 'specific intent' in criminal law?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How can one differentiate between an accomplice and a mere bystander?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the legal consequences for an accomplice if a principal commits the crime?