Accomplice Liability in Criminal Law: Who’s Responsible?

Accomplice liability in criminal law refers to the law that says if you help someone commit a crime, you can be punished as if you carried out the crime.

What Is Accomplice Liability?

Often, more than one defendant has a role in the commission of a crime. In such cases, accomplice liability arises. Accomplice liability refers to defendants working together with a common criminal purpose (the commission of the respective crime). Participation and criminal conduct can vary within this group of defendants. This is when the question arises: to what extent is each defendant responsible? Understanding accomplice liability can help us answer.

Common Law and Modern Law

Accomplice liability has origins in the English common law, which arrived to the American colonies with the English. At common law, accomplice liability was divided into four categories:

Common Law Accomplice Liability

Level of liability	Action
Principal in the first degree	Committed the crime
Principal in the second degree	Present at the crime scene and assisted in its commission
Accessory before the fact	Not present at the crime scene, but helped prepare for the crime’s commission
Accessory after the fact	Helped a party to a crime after the crime’s commission by providing comfort, aid, and assistance to escape or avoid prosecution

Modern law has broader categories of accomplice liability: a principal and accessory. The principal is the person committing the crime. The accessory helps the principal commit the crime. They are considered to have equal criminal responsibility, so long as the elements for accomplice liability are met.

Elements of Accomplice Liability

Accomplice Act  

Generally, the first element of accomplice liability is the accomplice act. The accomplice must voluntarily act to assist the commission of the crime. This type of action includes: aiding, abetting, assisting, counseling, commanding, inducing, or procuring (and more). For example, driving the getaway car or luring the victim to the scene are accomplice acts. Even a defendant’s words can be enough to establish an accomplice act. 

The defendant’s presence at the scene is not sufficient evidence of accomplice liability by itself. There must be other evidence of accomplice liability, such as if the defendant was present at the scene and had a legal duty to act. Having a legal duty to act means that the law requires you to act (usually intervene) when you witness the crime happening. The relationship between a parent and child demonstrates the legal duty to act. If Parent 1 witnesses Parent 2 harming their child and does not intervene, then Parent 1 is an accomplice in the crime against their child. This is because every parent has a legal duty to protect their child from harm.

Accomplice Intent 

The second element of accomplice liability is the accomplice's intent. The level of intent varies depending on the jurisdiction. In many jurisdictions, including California, the accomplice must act with specific intent. Specific intent means the accomplice specifically desires the outcome where the principal commits the crime. By contrast, general intent refers to knowledge of committing an illegal act, without desiring any specific outcome. In some jurisdictions, general intent is sufficient to establish accomplice liability for serious crimes. In a minority of jurisdictions, general intent is sufficient to establish accomplice liability regardless of the crime’s seriousness. 

In sum, the elements of accomplice liability are:

The Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine

A closely linked concept is the natural and probable causes doctrine. This doctrine applies to cases where the principal defendant of a crime commits another, different crime at the same time. For example, while the principal commits an armed bank robbery, they also murder someone. The accomplice, a getaway car driver, is then liable for the armed bank robbery and the murder charge. This is because the murder was a foreseeable consequence of an armed bank robbery.  Although some jurisdictions view this doctrine as too harsh, California does adhere to it. 

Sentencing

At modern law, accomplice liability is considered derivative. This means that the accomplice does not have to commit the crime to be responsible for the crime itself. Therefore, accomplices can face the same charges (and sentences) as the principal in the crime. For example, drawing from the armed bank robbery scenario, the getaway driver and the armed robber who murdered the victim are both charged with murder, and can both serve up to life in prison (in California). Judges have the discretion to lower or increase sentences based on the defendant’s criminal history and the circumstances of the case. There are also exceptions where co-defendants are sentenced differently, even when charged with the same crime. For instance, one co-defendant’s case may not go to trial due to evidentiary or procedural issues or a plea agreement. One co-defendant may be acquitted in a jury trial. Nonetheless, another co-defendant can still be found liable for the crime that everyone has been charged with.

Pinkerton Rule

A final consideration is the Pinkerton rule, established in Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946). It holds that each co-defendant is liable for the crimes of all other co-defendants in a conspiracy.

1. “A foreseeable outgrowth of the conspiracy (i.e., the murder of a guard); and

2. Committed in furtherance of the conspiratorial goal” (Kaplan) 

Therefore, due to the Pinkerton Rule, even a co-defendant who is only aware of part of the conspiracy, or only has a small role in the conspiracy, can still be charged with the most severe offense committed by another defendant. Many crimes are charged as 1) the crime itself and 2) the conspiracy to commit that crime. Thus, the Pinkerton rule is often applied. 

Conclusion

The parties to a crime are vulnerable to charging and sentencing for a crime they did not commit themselves. The parties become liable for the crime when they meet the accomplice liability elements: accomplice act and intent. In California, the level of intent required is usually specific intent that the principal commit the crime. The natural and probable consequences doctrine and Pinkerton rule can both cause accomplices to be charged with more serious crimes that happened while the primary crime was committed. Nonetheless, every case is unique.