Table 1, General Concepts
COMMON LAW
MPC
Intent
General Intent
- Requirement of purpose or knowledge
(1) Results the actor wants to occur (Purpose)
(2) Results actor knows are virtually certain to occur,
even if doesn’t want them to happen (Knowledge)
Specific Intent
(1) State 1
(a) General: no particular mental state set out in
definition of crime  only need to prove a “guilty
mind” was present
(b) Specific: mental state expressly set out in
definition of the crime
(2) State 2
(a) Specific: higher mental state  “Purpose” or
“Knowledge”
(b) General: crimes that permit less culpable mental
states  “Negligence” or “Recklessness
(3) State 3
(a) General: any mental state associated w/ actus reus
 “baseline offense”
(b) Specific: specific mental element required over
and above any mental state required w/ respect to
actus reus
- Possession w/ intent to distribute
Mistake of fact
(1) If Specific Intent
(a) Does mistake relate to specific intent element?
(i) If Yes
(A) Whether mistake negates specific intent element
1) if YES  Not Guilty
2) If No  Treat offense as if it were general
intent
(2) If General Intent
(a) Did ∆ act in a morally blameworthy way?
(i) if Yes  Morally Blameworthy  Culpable
(b) If mistake was reasonable here
(i) No  not morally blameworthy Not Culpable
(ii) UNLESS
(1) Moral wrong doctrine applies
(2) Legal Wrong doctrine applies
(3) If Strict Liability offense
(a) Mistake is not a defense
§2.02
(1) P,K,R, or N w/ respect to each material element of the offense
Material Elements:
- Conduct
- Attendant Circumstances
- Results
(2) Kinds of Culpability Required
(a) Purposely
(i) Conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature, or to cause
such a result
(ii) Aware of the existence of attendant circumstances and believes or
hopes they exist
(b) Knowingly
(i) Aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such
circumstances exist
(ii) Aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause
such a result
(c) Recklessly – consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable
risk; gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding
person would observe in the actor’s situation
(d) Negligently – should have been aware of substantial and
unjustifiable risk; actor’s failure to perceive involves gross deviation
from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe
(7) Willful Blindness: Knowledge is established if person is aware of a high
probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not
MPC § 2.04
(1) Ignorance or mistake a matter of fact OR law is a defense when:
(a) Negatives the P, K, belief, R, or N required to establish a material
element of he offense; or
(b) The law provides that a state of mind established by such ignorance
constitutes a defense
(2) Defense is not available if ∆ would be guilty of another offense had the
situation been as he supposed  ignorance shall reduce the grade and
degree of offense to that which he thought it was
(3) Mistake of law is a defense when:
(a) [Fair Notice] when statute defining offense is not known to the actor
and has not bee published or otherwise reasonably made available
prior to the conduct alleged; or
(b) [Reasonable Reliance] reliance upon an official statement of the law,
or a public official/officer
Mistake of law
Strict Liability
Causation
Not an excuse UNLESS:
(1) Ignorance negates mens rea:
(a) Same Law Mistake
(i) not a defense  “didn’t know what this law
meant”
(b) Different Law Mistake
(i) CAN be a defense only for specific intent
(ii) If an element of the defense is defined in
another statute, then you might be able to use
that as a defense
(2) Reasonable Reliance
(a) when an official interpretation by a public official
tells you it’s “ok”
(3) Fair Notice
(a) Violation of due process when offender had no
actual knowledge of a duty of a registration act
(1) Public Welfare Offenses
(2) Statutory Rape
(3) No Mental Element required
(4) Malum Prohibutum (as opposed to Malum in se) 
only wrong because legislature says its wrong
(5) Severity of penalty as cue of whether or not it’s strict
liability
(1) Actual Cause  Cause in Fact
(a) But For causation
(b) Substantial Factor causation
(2) Proximate Causation  Legal Cause
(a) intervening ‘but for’ occurrence after offender
commits actus reus but before result occurs
(b) superseding cause  if subsequent action cuts off ∆’s
conduct as the cause
§2.04 (3) (above)
(1) Rejects Strict Liability
(a) Puts mens rea on a pedestal
(2) Where there is strict liability, it’s only a violation, not a crime
§2.05
(1) Requirements of culpability do not apply to
(a) Violations
(b) Offenses defined in statutes other than the code
(2) When absolute liability is imposed,
(a) The offense constitutes a violation; and
(b) If you can prove Negligence, can be charged w/ the crime
§2.03
(1) Conduct is the cause when
(a) it is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not
have occurred; and
(b) relationship satisfies btwn conduct and result satisfies any additional
causal requirements imposed by the Code or other law
(2) when purposely or knowingly establishes culpability:
(3) When recklessly or negligently establishes culpability
Strict Liability: not established unless result is probable consequence of actor’s
conduct
Table 2, Criminal Homicide
COMMON LAW
First-degree
murder
Seconddegree
murder
Voluntary
manslaughter
Involuntary
manslaughter
(1) Premeditated and Deliberate
(2) Sufficient duration for the accused to be fully conscious
of what he intended
(a) Can be the “twinkling of the eye”
(3) Felony Murder
(a) No mens rea
(b) Inherently dangerous felony
(c) Independent felony (merger)
(d) In perpetration / furtherance of felony
(i) Agency Approach – Majority
(ii) Proximate Cause – Minority
(1) Malice Aforethought (express Malice)
(a) Intent to kill; or
(b) Intent to cause grievous bodily injury
(2) Extreme Recklessness; 
(3) Depraved Heart Murder – Implied Malice
(a) Conscious disregard to the risk of or danger to
human life
(i) Conscious disregard
(ii) Extreme indifference to the value of human
life
(b) Unintentional Killing
(c) Felony Murder?
(1) Intentional killing done in sudden heat of passion
caused by adequate provocation
(a) Adequate Provocation – words not enough
(i) Discovery of spouse
(ii) Mutual combat
(iii) Assault and Battery
(A) Extreme; or
(B) On a close relative
(b) Heat of passion – can’t be mistaken about what
provoked
(c) Before passions cool / right after the provocation
(d) Causal connection btwn provocation and passion
and fatal act
(1) Criminal Negligence
(2) “Regular” recklessness
MPC
Criminal Homicide – § 210.1
Murder § 210.2 – No Degrees
(1) Crim Hom is murder when
(a) purposely or knowingly; or
(b) recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme
indifference to the value of human life  assumed
when an accomplice to commit or attempt to
commit or flight after committing: (Felony Murder)
(i)
robbery, rape, deviate sexual intercourse
by force or threat of force, arson, burglary,
kidnapping, or felonious escape
(ii)
∆ can offer evidence to mitigate to
manslaughter or neg. hom.
(2) Felony of the 1st degree
Murder
§210.3
(1) Criminal Homicide is manslaughter when:
(a) Recklessly; or
(b) Would otherwise be murder but committed under
influence of extreme mental or emotional
disturbance  reasonableness determined from the
viewpoint of a person in the actor’s situation under
the circumstances he believes them to be
(2) Felony of the 2nd degree
(3) Words ARE enough
(4) V does not need to be one who provoked ∆
(5) ∆ could have been mistaken
(6) Provocation does not need to be sudden – can build over
time
§210.4
(1) Criminal Homicide is a negligent homicide When it is
committed negligently
(2) Felony of the 3rd degree
Manslaughter
Negligent
homicide
Table 3, Rape
COMMON LAW
Actus reus “Carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly against her will”
Mens rea
Mistake
(1) Intercourse
(2) Force
(a) Physical (including threats)
(b) Non-physical (fraud in the factum)
(3) Non-Consent
(a) Resistance Requirement  moving toward lower resistance
requirement
(b) Post-penetration w/drawal of consent
(i) majority: NOT rape, but can be lesser offense
(ii) minority: rape if ∆ does not desist after objection
(4) Against the will of the victim
General Intent Offense  Only a reasonable mistake regarding consent
negates mens rea
(1) Fraud in the factum  vitiates consent
(a) impersonating spouse = fraud in factum
(2) Fraud in inducement  does not vitiate consent
Table 4, Theft MPC Articles 221, 222, 223
COMMON LAW
(1) The trespassory
Larceny
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Embezzlement
Robbery
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(a) Continuing Trespass Doctrine
Taking and
Carrying Away of
Personal Property
Of Another with
Intent to steal
(a) Does not need to be permanent deprivation
(b) Bona fide claim of right is affirmative defense
Fraudulent
Conversion of
The property
Of Another
By one who is already in lawful possession of it
The trespassory
Taking and
Carrying Away of
Personal Property
Of Another with
Intent to steal
Taken from the person or presence of the owner
(a) Whether he could have prevented taking as a test
Accomplished by using force or putting owner in fear
MPC
§213.1
(1) w/ female not his wife
(a) compels by force or threat of imminent death or serious bodily
injury, extreme pain or kidnapping, to be inflicted on anyone
(b) impaired her power to appraise control of her conduct
(c) unconscious
(d) under 10 years old
Felony of 2nd degree unless they inflicted serious bodily injury upon anyone, or
they don’t know each other  1st degree
§213.4 – Sexual Assault
misdemeanor  offensive contact
§213.6
(1) It is a defense by preponderance of the evidence that ∆ reasonably believed
child to be above the critical age (statutory rape stuff)
MPC
§223.2 – Theft by Unlawful Taking or Disposition
§223.3. – Theft by Deception
§222.1
(1) In the course of committing a theft (actually doing it or in flight after
it), he:
(a) Inflicts serious bodily injury;
(b) Threatens another with or purposely puts him in hear of
immediate serious bodily injury; or
(c) Commits or threatens to commit any felony
False
pretenses
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Burglary
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(a) Threat of harm may suffice
(b) Reasonable person standard not applied
False representation of a
Material present or past fact
Which causes the person to whom it is made
To pass title to
His property to the misrepresenter, who
Knows that his representation is false, and intends to defraud
(a) Fraud vitiates consent
(b) Gullibility is not a defense
(c) No pecuniary loss not a defense
Breaking and
(a) an opening created by the burglar
Entering of
(a) Any part of burglar’s anatomy
(b) Even for a moment
The dwelling of another
(a) Place of business does not suffice
At night
(a) no longer required
With intent to commit a felony therein
(a) Just any crime (at least a misdemeanor)
§223.4 – Theft by Extortion
§221.1
(1) enters a building or occupied structure, with purpose to commit a crime
therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the actor is
licensed or privileged to enter  affirmative defense that the building was
abandonded
Table 5, Defenses
COMMON LAW
Justification
Self-defense
Defense of
property
Social harm of offense outweighed by need to avoid greater harm
(1) Threat actual or apparent
(2) Must be unlawful threat
(3) Must be immediate
(4) ∆ must have believed he was in imminent danger
(5) Objectively reasonable belief
(6) Necessity (to save himself from harm)
(a) “Clean Hands Doctrine”  cannot be self-generated
necessity to kill
(b) Must use proportionate force
Retreat:
(1) if avenue of retreat is unsafe, can stand ground
(2) Retreat to the Wall v. Stand Your Ground laws
(3) Castle Doctrine – no duty to retreat if attacked in own home
“Imperfect Self-Defense” ?
Battered Women Syndrome
(1) Confrontational Homicides - valid
(2) Non-confrontational Homicides - split
(3) “Hired Gun” homicide – split, but unlikely
(1) General Rule: May not use deadly force to defend or protect
persona property
(2) Also cannot THREATEN deadly force to protect personal
property
MPC
Article 3
§3.04
(1) Actor believes such force is immediately necessary
(2) Limitations
(a) not justifiable to
(i) resist arrest
(ii) resist proper owner of a property
(b) deadly force not justifiable unless actor believes such force
necessary
(i) not if actor provoked the V
(ii) actor can retreat or surrender possession or comply w/
a demand to abstain from an action he has not duty to
take, except
(1) his dwelling or place of work, unless initial
aggressor or assailed by another who’s place of
work it is
(3) Confinement is allowed as long as he stops the confinement as
soon as he knows he safely can
§3.06
(1) Justifiable when person believes
(a) It’s to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other
trespass or unlawful carrying away of property, or
believed by actor to be in other’s possession
(b) To take stuff back when actor believes he was unlawfully
dispossessed of such land or property and is entitled to
possession
(i) If the force is used immediately, in fresh pursuit; or
(ii) Exceptional hardship to postpone until court order is
gained
(3) Limitations on justifiable force
(a) Only if actor first requests the person to desist, unless the
actor believes
(i) Request would be useless; or
(ii) Would be dangerous to make the request;
(iii) Harm will be done to the property
(d) Deadly Force not justifiable unless actor believes
(i) Person is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling
(ii) Attempting to commit arson, burglary, robbery, or
other felonious theft or destruction of property and
either
(1) has employed or threatened deadly force
(2) use of force other than deadly force would expose
actor to substantial danger of serious bodily harm
Defense of
habitation
Defense of
others
Crime
prevention
Necessity
Excuse
Duress
(1) At time of entry, one is able to use deadly force to repel any
invasion of his home
(2) If there exists reasonable factual grounds to believe that
unless so used, a felony would be committed inside
(3) Minority Rule:
(a) Because person already in house, continuation of invasion
of privacy and thus can still use defense
One can use deadly force in the defense of another when the 3 rd party
being protected would have had the right to use deadly force in selfdefense
General Rule:
(1) Cannot use deadly force to prevent a midemeanor
(2) Different J/Ds:
(a) Can use deadly force to prevent any felony
(3) Once crime committed, self-defense no longer applies
Elements:
(1) Prevent significant evil
(2) No adequate alternative
(3) Harm caused is not disproportionate to harm avoided
(4) Only available w/ non-human cause (act of god)
(5) See, Kantian Ethics…
All elements established, moral blameworthiness negated
Elements:
(1) Immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury
(2) Well-grounded fear that threat would be carried out
(3) No reasonable opportunity to escape threatened harm
Threat to property does not suffice
Need “clean hands”
Not a ∆se to murder or any intentional killing charge
§3.06(3)(d) (as shown above)
§3.05
(1) Use of force is justifiable to protect another when
(a) Actor would be justified to protect himself
(b) That person would be justified to protect himself
(c) Actor believes his intervention is necessary
(2) Aside from (1)
(a) When actor would be obliged to retreat, don’t have to do
so here unless knows he can secure safety of other person
(b) When other is obliged to retreat, actor has to try to cause
him to do so before using force
§3.07
§3.02
(1) Conduct actor believes to be necessary is justifiable provided
that
(a) harm or evil sought to be avoided is greater
(b) no law providing exceptions dealing w/ the situation
(c) legislative purpose to exclude justification claimed is not
clear
(2) When actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about the
situation, defense not available for any offense where R or N
satisfies culpability
(3) “Nothing off limits” – potentially including Homicide
§2.09
Insanity
Diminished
capacity
Intoxication
Infancy
Rotten social
background
Tests
(1) M’Naghten Test
(a) Laboring under defect of reason from disease of the mind
(b) As not to know nature and quality of the act he was doing
(c) Or that he did not know that the act he was doing was
wrong
(2) Irresistible Impulse / Control Test
(a) Absolutely no control over action
(3) Durham “Product Test
(a) Result or product of mental defect  expert witness
dependent
(4) MPC Test 
(1) Mens Rea Variant
(a) Failure of Proof defense
(i) sometimes only available for specific intent
(ii) some J/Ds reject dim.cap. across the board
(2) Partial Responsibility Variant
(a) Excuse defense
(i) Govt. proved all elements, but should be guilty of
less severe crime
(ii) Deals w/ mental abnormalities insufficient for
insanity
(1) Voluntary
(a) Moral blameworthiness constitutes general intent crimes
 not a defense: ∆ morally blameworthy for getting that
drunk
(b) Can create failure of proof for certain specific intent
crimes
(2) Involuntary
(a) Scenarios
(i)
Coerced
(ii)
Pathological Intoxication
(iii)
By innocent Mistake
(iv)
Unexpectedly intoxicated by prescribed drug
(b) Acquittal
(i)
Failure of Proof
(ii)
Temporary insanity
(1) Under age 7: infancy bars conviction
(2) Over age 14: no infancy defense
(3) Between 7 and 14: rebuttable presumption that child does not
have cognitive capacity to distinguish right from wrong
§4.01
(1)
- Cognitive Prong:
(a) Lacks substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness
(criminality) of the act
- Volitional Prong
(a) Unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the
law
(2) “Mental disease or defect” does not include abnormality
manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial
conduct
§210.3(1)(b)
Mitigating murder to manslaughter
§2.08
(1) Not a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense
(2) When recklessness is enough, self-induced intoxication is not a
defense
(3) If (a) not self-induced, or (b) pathological, it IS an affirmative
defense IF by reason of intoxication, actor lacks substantial
capacity to either appreciate criminally or to conform his
conduct to requirements of the law
Table 6.1 – Attempt
Attempt
CL
MPC
Actus reus
Incomplete Attempt  not able to do everything planned
Complete Attempt  does everything, but fails
General Attempt: covering all felonies
Specific Attempt: provisions in specific statutes
Hybrid:
- Specific to the particular title
- General to all crimes in the title
Distinction between Preparation and Perpetration
(1) Physical Proximity
(2) Dangerous Proximity
(3) Indispensable Element Test
(4) Probable Desistence Test
(5) Abnormal Step Test
(6) Res Ipsa Loquitur / Unequivicality Test
Impossibility
(1) Factual Impossibility  Not a defense
(2) Legal Impossibility  is a defense
(a) Pure Legal Impossibility
(i) engages in conduct he believes is criminal but is
actually not illegal
(b) Hybrid Legal Impossibility
(i) Factual mistake about attendant circumstances
that makes the act NOT a crime – factual mistake
about the legality
(ii) Difficult to distinguish from factual impossibility
(iii) Many jurisdictions have eliminated this
§5.01(1)(c): Act must be a substantial step in a course of conduct designed to
accomplish a criminal result, and that it be strongly corroborative of criminal
purpose in order for it to constitute such a substantial step
(1) Focuses on what has already been done instead of what remains to do
be done
(2) No requirement that actor would probably have desisted prior to
completing the crime
(3) Firmness of criminal purpose to be shown by requiring substantial step,
while problems of proof dealt w/ by corroboration requirement
(making it differ from res ipsa test requiring only manifestation of
criminal purpose)
Mens rea
Dual Intent
(1) Intent to perform the actus reus
(2) Specific intent to commit the target offense
(a) no common law attempted felony murder
(b) yes to attempted statutory rape
§5.01
(1) If acting w/ kind of culpability required for crime
(a) purposely, if attendant circumstances are as he believes;
(b) does or omits w/ purpose of causing or with the belief that it will
cause such result
(c) an act or omission constituting a substantial step in course of
conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime
§5.01(4)
Complete and voluntary renunciation, not just a postponement  truly need a
change of heart, not just that you thought you’d be caught
Abandonment Not a defense @ CL, but some courts hide it under the preparation /
perpetration distinction
Punishment
Generally guilty of same category of crime (misdemeanor, felony)
but guilty of less grading/degree  statutory maximum will be
lower than commission of actual offense
Table 6.2 - Solicitation
Solicitation
CL
MPC
Actus reus
Definition:
(1) asking, enticing, or counseling of another
Completed upon the asking  no additional act required
Uncommunicated solicitation
1) In general: not solicitation
2) Minority: might be an attempted solicitation
§5.02
(1) … commands, encourages, or requests another person to engage in
specific conduct that would constitute such crime or an attempt to
commit such crime or which would establish his complicity in its
commission or attempted commission
(2) Immaterial that actor fails to communicate
- can be guilty of soliciting someone who has already decided to
commit crime w/o you initially soliciting them
Mens rea
Specific Intent:
- ∆ must have solicited other person w/ specific intent that the
other person go and commit the crime
Yes
§5.02(1) w/ purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission
Merger
Withdrawal
Punishment Lighter punishment than the solicited crime; lighter punishment than
for attempt
Yes
Affirmative defense if actor persuades other person not to do so or otherwise
prevented the commission manifesting a complete and voluntary
renunciation of his criminal purpose
Table 6.3 - Conspiracy
Conspiracy
CL
Actus reus
Mens rea
Merger
Withdrawal
Punishment
Partnership in criminal purposes
(1) Mutual agreement or understanding
(2) Between two or more persons
(3) To commit a criminal act; or
(4) Accomplishment of a legal act by unlawful means (mostly eliminated)
Crime is complete upon creation of agreement –
Majority: no overt act
(1) Minority: Some jurisdictions require an overt act after initial agreement
(2) Very easy to prove – almost anything counts
Pinkerton
(1) Liable for any acts of a co-conspirator when act is
(a) w/in scope of conspiracy
(b) in furtherance of the conspiracy
(c) reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy
Specific Intent, Dual intent
(1) Intent to agree
(2) Intent to commit underlying / target offense
Requirement of purpose and knowledge
(1) Knowledge alone is not enough
(2) Purpose may be inferred
(a) Direct evidence that actor intends to participate
(b) Through an inference
(i) Special interest in the activity
(A) acquired a stake in venture
(B) no legit. Use for goods
(C) volume of business grossly disproportionate to legit
demand
(ii) Aggravated nature of the crime
- Requirement of Bilateral Conspiracy
- Wharton’s Rule
Does not merge w/ substantive offense
(1) J/Ds that require Overt Act:
(a) Affirmative and bona fide rejection or repudiation of conspiracy
communicated to co-conspirators
(i) Complete defense before overt act committed
(ii) Defense to underlying offense and actions in furtherance after
overt act
(2) J/Ds w/o overt acts
(a) no withdrawal once you agree
(b) Can be defense to underlying and actions in furtherance
Punished at a lower level than target offense (majority)
MPC
§5.03
(1) w/ purpose he
(a) agrees that they or one or more of them will engage
in conduct that constitutes such crime or an attempt
to commit
(b) agrees to aid in the planning or commission or an
attempt or solicitation to commit such crime
Can be guilty of a unilateral conspiracy
5.03
(1) … w/ purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission
(2) If person guilty of conspiracy knows person has conspired w/
another person, he is guilty of conspiring w/ that other person too
(3) guilty of only one conspiracy even if it has multiple objectives
(5) Overt Act required for crimes other than a felony of the first
or second degree
Generally does merge unless conspiracy is broader than the object
offense
No Withdrawal, but yes to Renunciation
§5.03(6) – Renunciation
- Affirmative Defense
- Requires that you thwart the conspiracy, manifesting
complete and voluntary renunciation
Punished at same level as substantive offense
Table 6.4 – Complicity
Complicity
Actus reus
Mens rea
Withdrawal
Punishment
CL
MPC
(1) Principal in the First Degree – Perpetrator
(a) One who actually commits the offense
(2) Principal in the 2nd Degree – Abettor
(a) aided, counseled, commanded, or encouraged the
commission in his presence, either actual or constructive
(3) Accessory before the fact – inciter
(a) same as above, but the commission NOT in his presence
(4) Accessory after the fact – criminal protectors
(a) w/ knowledge of other’s guilt, renders assistance to a
felon in effort to hinder his detection, arrest, trial, or
punishment
- Majority: Mere Presence is not enough
- Undisclosed intention to render aid if needed will not suffice
- Requires proof of actual assistance
Dual Intent
(1) Intent to assist the primary party in the criminal conduct
(2) Purposeful intent that the offense actually be committed
Natural-and-Probable-Consequences Doctrine
(1) Primary party commits offense
(2) Was secondary party an accomplice
(3) Did primary party commit any other offenses
(4) Whether latter crimes “although not necessarily
contemplated at the outset, were reasonably foreseeable
consequences of the original criminal acts encouraged or
facilitated by the accomplice”
Innocent Agency Doctrine
(1) One who effects criminal act through innocent or unwitting agent
is principal in 1st degree
- When no mental state set out: acting w/ recklessness or negligence
Attendant Circumstance:
(1) requires mental state for underlying offense
§2.06
(1) Committed by his own conduct or conduct of another for which he is
legally accountable
(2) Legally accountable for another when
(a) Innocent or irresponsible person to engage in conduct
(b) Made accountable by law
(c) Is an accomplice
(3) A person is an accomplice when
(a) w/ purpose of promoting or facilitating, he
(i) solicits;
(ii) aids or agrees or attempts to aid
(iii) has a legal duty to prevent and doesn’t
(b) expressly declared by law to establish complicity
(4)
(3) - Purpose
(4) When causing particular result is an element of the offense, you’re an
accomplice if you act w/ the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the offense
(7) may be convicted even if person claimed to have committed the offense has
NOT been prosecuted or convicted, or has been convicted of a different offense
or degree or has an immunity
Top three: same. After the fact: less serious
No recognition of natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine