Criminal Law sample analysis
MBE Criminal Law Accomplice Liability Withdrawal Trap
Work through an accomplice-liability question with examiner-style analysis on aiding, intent, withdrawal, and why timing matters.
On this page
Fact pattern
Sonia agreed to help Kai burglarize a pharmacy by lending Kai her van and texting him when the alley behind the store looked empty. Two hours before the planned burglary, Sonia panicked, called Kai, and said she wanted no part of the plan. Kai did not answer. Sonia then drove to the pharmacy, parked the van in a different neighborhood, and texted Kai: "Van gone. I'm out." Kai nevertheless broke into the pharmacy on foot using his own backpack and stole controlled substances. He was arrested a block away. Sonia is charged as an accomplice to burglary.
Quick answer
Sonia likely withdrew effectively from accomplice liability because she repudiated the plan and neutralized her prior assistance before Kai committed the burglary. An accomplice is liable when, with the intent to facilitate the offense, the accomplice aids, counsels, encourages, or otherwise assists the principal. But a person who has provided assistance may sometimes avoid accomplice liability through timely and effective withdrawal before the crime is committed. The withdrawal must generally do more than a change of heart: the accomplice must neutralize prior aid when possible or otherwise communicate repudiation in time to deprive the principal of the assistance. Mere regret after the crime or last-minute silence is not enough. Timing matters because withdrawal must occur before the offense is completed and must be meaningful enough to undo or counteract the prior aid.
IRAC analysis
Did Sonia effectively withdraw from accomplice liability before Kai committed the burglary, or is her earlier assistance enough to make her liable anyway?
An accomplice is liable when, with the intent to facilitate the offense, the accomplice aids, counsels, encourages, or otherwise assists the principal. But a person who has provided assistance may sometimes avoid accomplice liability through timely and effective withdrawal before the crime is committed. The withdrawal must generally do more than a change of heart: the accomplice must neutralize prior aid when possible or otherwise communicate repudiation in time to deprive the principal of the assistance. Mere regret after the crime or last-minute silence is not enough. Timing matters because withdrawal must occur before the offense is completed and must be meaningful enough to undo or counteract the prior aid.
Sonia initially looked like an accomplice because she intentionally lent her van and agreed to provide lookout-style information. The real question is whether she withdrew effectively before the burglary…
Primary law and source anchors
- Model Penal Code Section 2.06(6)(c) An accomplice may avoid liability by terminating complicity before the offense and wholly depriving prior assistance of effectiveness or otherwise preventing the offense.
- Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) Accomplice liability turns on intentional facilitation and meaningful opportunity to withdraw before completion.
- People v. Brown, 26 N.E.3d 246 (N.Y. 2015) Withdrawal analysis turns on whether the accomplice took concrete steps to renounce or neutralize participation.
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) Useful contrast between accomplice liability and ongoing conspiracy-based attribution.