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.
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 model answer
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. She did more than express regret. She tried to communicate repudiation by calling and then texting Kai that she was out. More importantly, she affirmatively neutralized her prior aid by removing the van from the planned escape route and parking it elsewhere before the burglary occurred. That deprived Kai of the transportation assistance she had originally promised. Kai still committed the burglary, but he did so on foot and using his own equipment rather than relying on Sonia's aid. The prosecution will argue Sonia did not contact the police or physically stop Kai. But accomplice withdrawal does not always require heroic prevention measures; it requires effective repudiation and, where possible, withdrawal of the aid previously supplied. On these facts, Sonia likely did enough in time to undo her assistance before the burglary was completed.
Sonia likely withdrew effectively from accomplice liability because she repudiated the plan and neutralized her prior assistance before Kai committed the burglary.
Numbered reasoning steps
- Identify Sonia's original aid and intent to facilitate the crime.
- Ask whether the withdrawal happened before the offense was completed.
- Look for affirmative steps that neutralized or withdrew prior aid.
- Distinguish true withdrawal from mere regret or passive nonparticipation.
- Conclude by tying the withdrawal steps to the assistance Sonia originally promised.
Why wrong answers fail
Timely and effective withdrawal can cut off accomplice liability when the defendant neutralizes prior aid before the offense occurs.
Withdrawal requires more than anxiety or regret. The key is that Sonia also removed the van and repudiated before the burglary happened.
The principal's completion of the offense does not by itself defeat a timely withdrawal if the accomplice successfully neutralized the promised assistance.
Withdrawal is a classic accomplice-liability issue because it can end liability for the later offense when done effectively and in time.
Issue-spotting checklist
- State the original accomplice act and mental state first.
- Ask what aid was promised or supplied.
- Look for repudiation plus an effort to neutralize that specific aid.
- Measure the timing before the offense was complete.
- Do not confuse accomplice withdrawal with conspiracy withdrawal.
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.