Also known as: accomplice liabilities · complicity · aiding and abetting
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Criminal responsibility imposed on one person for the conduct of another when the first person aids, encourages, or solicits the commission of an offense with the purpose of facilitating it. The doctrine requires both an act of assistance or encouragement and a mental state of purpose to promote the crime. Liability attaches even if the principal actor is not convicted or the offense remains uncompleted in some jurisdictions.
Andrew Avery mixes a harmful substance into an unlabeled container and places it on the prep line for Austin Abbott to use against their supervisor. Abbott loses his nerve and never uses the substance. Avery faces attempt liability because his conduct was designed to aid Abbott's planned crime even though no further steps occurred.
Abigail Alvarez agrees to supply a map and falsified documents to Anita Ali for illegal dumping. Before any loads are moved, Alvarez retrieves the materials and reports the plan to authorities. Alvarez avoids liability because she terminated her role and wholly deprived the assistance of effectiveness.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Austin Abbott meets with Alexis Archer and supplies detailed credentials and timing instructions so Archer can obtain and air hacked video during a broadcast. Abbott's purpose is to boost ratings through the unauthorized act. Abbott is guilty of solicitation even though Archer has not yet completed the hack.
Alan Ackerman and Anita Ali agree to rob several banks. Ackerman stays home while Ali commits the robberies. Ackerman is liable for the substantive robberies because they were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Andrew Avery and Austin Abbott form an agreement to run an illegal gambling operation. Avery participates only in the initial planning. Avery faces no additional substantive liability beyond the conspiracy itself because the agreement alone does not automatically create accomplice liability for later acts.
Argonaut Shipping executives direct foreign subsidiaries to engage in conduct that aids human rights violations overseas. The parent company faces no U.S. court liability for the foreign acts under the doctrine because the conduct occurred entirely outside the United States.
The accomplice must act with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense. Mere knowledge that assistance will help the crime is generally insufficient without that purpose.
Yes. An accomplice may be convicted on proof of the offense and the complicity even if the principal has not been prosecuted, has been acquitted, or enjoys immunity.
Accomplice liability requires an act of aiding or encouraging plus purpose. Conspiracy requires an agreement and may impose broader liability for foreseeable crimes under the Pinkerton rule in some jurisdictions.
No. Once the solicitation is complete, later withdrawal or renunciation does not relieve the solicitor of liability under either common law or the Model Penal Code.
Any conduct that aids, encourages, or solicits the crime meets the actus reus requirement. The assistance need not be substantial so long as it is purposeful.
…in the Fourteenth Amendment. I therefore concur in the judgment of the Court reversing these convictions under Connecticut's aiding and abetting statute. It would be unduly repetitious, and belaboring the obvious, to expound on the impact of this statute on the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against arbitrary or…