Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Accomplice Liability
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Accomplice LiabilityQuestion 1 of 20

A man supplied a specialized drill to a woman, knowing that she planned to use it to break into a safe during a burglary. The day before the planned burglary, the man had a change of heart. He went to the woman's apartment to retrieve the drill but she was not home. He then called the police department's non-emergency line, identified himself, and reported that the woman was planning a burglary at a specific address the next night and that he had supplied a tool. He did not say what the tool was. Due to a shift change, the information was not passed on, and the woman committed the burglary as planned, using the drill.

Is the man's attempt to withdraw legally sufficient to serve as a defense to a charge of accomplice to burglary? Select one.

Yes, because he made a good faith effort to notify the police before the crime occurred.
Yes, because he attempted to retrieve the drill, which would have neutralized his assistance.
No, because his assistance was not actually neutralized and his warning to the police was ineffective.
No, because once he provided the drill with criminal intent, the crime of being an accomplice was complete.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Accomplice Liability

Practice Accomplice Liability in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Accomplice Liability, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

A man supplied a specialized drill to a woman, knowing that she planned to use it to break into a safe during a burglary. The day before the planned burglary, the man had a change of heart. He went to the woman's apartment to retrieve the drill but she was not home. He then called the police department's non-emergency line, identified himself, and reported that the woman was planning a burglary at a specific address the next night and that he had supplied a tool. He did not say what the tool was. Due to a shift change, the information was not passed on, and the woman committed the burglary as planned, using the drill.

Is the man's attempt to withdraw legally sufficient to serve as a defense to a charge of accomplice to burglary? Select one.

  1. Yes, because he made a good faith effort to notify the police before the crime occurred.
  2. Yes, because he attempted to retrieve the drill, which would have neutralized his assistance.
  3. No, because his assistance was not actually neutralized and his warning to the police was ineffective. (correct answer)
  4. No, because once he provided the drill with criminal intent, the crime of being an accomplice was complete.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. When an accomplice provides material assistance or an instrumentality for the crime, a mere repudiation or warning is not enough to constitute a valid withdrawal. The accomplice must make a substantial effort to neutralize the assistance provided. Here, the man's attempt to retrieve the drill was unsuccessful, and his call to a non-emergency line, which proved ineffective, did not actually thwart the crime. Because his assistance (the drill) was a key part of the burglary's success and he failed to neutralize it, his withdrawal defense will fail. Choice A is incorrect because an ineffective good-faith effort is not sufficient when material aid has been given. Choice B is incorrect because his attempt failed. Choice D is incorrect because withdrawal is a valid affirmative defense if properly executed before the crime is complete.

Question 2

A man decided to burglarize a warehouse. He asked an acquaintance, who worked as a locksmith, to make a key for the warehouse's back door. The man told the locksmith, "I lost my key and I need to get into my business's warehouse tonight to get some inventory." The locksmith was suspicious because the request was unusual, but he had no actual knowledge of the man's criminal purpose. For his standard fee, the locksmith created the key. The man used the key to enter the warehouse and steal valuable equipment.

If the man is prosecuted for burglary, is the locksmith also guilty as an accomplice? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the locksmith provided the instrumentality used to commit the burglary.
  2. Yes, because a reasonable person in the locksmith's position would have been suspicious of the man's purpose.
  3. No, because the locksmith did not share the man's criminal intent. (correct answer)
  4. No, because the locksmith was paid his standard fee and did not profit from the burglary itself.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. Accomplice liability requires a dual mens rea: (1) the intent to provide the assistance, and (2) the intent that the principal commit the target offense. Here, while the locksmith intended to make the key, he did not know of the man's criminal purpose and therefore did not have the intent for the burglary to be committed. Mere suspicion or knowledge that one's actions might assist in a crime is generally insufficient for accomplice liability, especially when the assistance involves the sale of ordinary goods or services. Choice A is incorrect because providing the instrumentality (the actus reus) is not enough without the required mens rea. Choice B is incorrect because a negligence or 'reasonable person' standard is not the standard for accomplice liability; intent is required. Choice D is incorrect because whether the accomplice profits from the crime is not determinative of liability, although it can be evidence of intent.

Question 3

A defendant was angry at a neighbor. He gave his roommate a baseball bat and told him, "Go over there and rough him up a bit. Break a window or two to send a message, but don't seriously hurt him." The roommate went to the neighbor's house, broke a window, and then got into an argument with the neighbor. The argument escalated, and the roommate, in a fit of rage, used the bat to severely beat the neighbor, causing life-threatening injuries. The jurisdiction defines aggravated battery as a battery that causes great bodily harm.

In addition to property damage, for which crime is the defendant most likely liable as an accomplice? Select one.

  1. Aggravated battery, because the beating was a foreseeable consequence of telling the roommate to "rough up" the neighbor with a bat. (correct answer)
  2. Simple battery only, because the defendant specifically instructed the roommate not to seriously hurt the neighbor.
  3. No battery, because the roommate's actions exceeded the scope of the defendant's instructions.
  4. Conspiracy to commit battery, but not the battery itself, because he did not personally strike the neighbor.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. An accomplice is responsible for the planned crime and any other crimes that are the natural and probable (foreseeable) consequence of that crime. Instructing someone to "rough up" a person with a baseball bat creates a foreseeable risk of serious injury. The roommate's escalation to aggravated battery was a natural and probable consequence of the initial criminal plan. Choice B is incorrect because a defendant cannot escape liability for foreseeable consequences by simply telling the principal not to go too far, especially when providing a dangerous weapon. Choice C is incorrect for the same reason; the act did not exceed the scope of what was foreseeable. Choice D is incorrect because the defendant is liable for the substantive crime as an accomplice, not just the inchoate crime of conspiracy.

Question 4

A man supplied a specialized drill to a woman, knowing that she planned to use it to break into a safe during a burglary. The day before the planned burglary, the man had a change of heart. He went to the woman's apartment to retrieve the drill but she was not home. He then called the police department's non-emergency line, identified himself, and reported that the woman was planning a burglary at a specific address the next night and that he had supplied a tool. He did not say what the tool was. Due to a shift change, the information was not passed on, and the woman committed the burglary as planned, using the drill.

Is the man's attempt to withdraw legally sufficient to serve as a defense to a charge of accomplice to burglary? Select one.

  1. Yes, because he made a good faith effort to notify the police before the crime occurred.
  2. Yes, because he attempted to retrieve the drill, which would have neutralized his assistance.
  3. No, because his assistance was not actually neutralized and his warning to the police was ineffective. (correct answer)
  4. No, because once he provided the drill with criminal intent, the crime of being an accomplice was complete.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. When an accomplice provides material assistance or an instrumentality for the crime, a mere repudiation or warning is not enough to constitute a valid withdrawal. The accomplice must make a substantial effort to neutralize the assistance provided. Here, the man's attempt to retrieve the drill was unsuccessful, and his call to a non-emergency line, which proved ineffective, did not actually thwart the crime. Because his assistance (the drill) was a key part of the burglary's success and he failed to neutralize it, his withdrawal defense will fail. Choice A is incorrect because an ineffective good-faith effort is not sufficient when material aid has been given. Choice B is incorrect because his attempt failed. Choice D is incorrect because withdrawal is a valid affirmative defense if properly executed before the crime is complete.

Question 5

Three individuals—a man, a woman, and a teenager—agreed to commit a burglary. The man's role was to disable the alarm system, the woman's role was to serve as a lookout, and the teenager's role was to enter the house and steal jewelry. The man successfully disabled the alarm. While the teenager was inside the house, the woman, acting as lookout, saw a police car approaching. She sent a text message only to the man saying, "Cops are coming! Let's go!" The man and woman fled the scene together. They made no attempt to warn the teenager, who was subsequently caught inside the house by the police.

Has the woman successfully withdrawn from the crime, thereby avoiding liability as an accomplice to the teenager's burglary? Select one.

  1. Yes, because she abandoned the criminal enterprise before its completion.
  2. Yes, because she was only a lookout and did not enter the house.
  3. No, because she did not communicate her withdrawal to the teenager. (correct answer)
  4. No, because she had already provided assistance by agreeing to be the lookout.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. To effectuate a valid withdrawal, an accomplice must communicate their repudiation of the crime to the other principals and make a sufficient effort to prevent the crime's commission. Here, the woman's withdrawal was communicated only to the man, not to the teenager who was the principal actor inside the house. By failing to warn the teenager, she did not effectively repudiate her participation or take sufficient steps to thwart the crime. Therefore, her withdrawal is ineffective. Choice A is incorrect because mere abandonment is not enough for a legal withdrawal. Choice B is irrelevant to the question of withdrawal; her role as a lookout is what made her an accomplice in the first place. Choice D is incorrect because withdrawal is a defense that can negate liability even after assistance has been provided, if the withdrawal is done properly.

Question 6

A defendant and a friend were walking down the street when the friend suddenly decided to snatch a purse from a pedestrian. As the friend grabbed the purse and began to struggle with the pedestrian, the defendant, wanting to help his friend, stood between the struggle and other people on the sidewalk, preventing anyone from intervening. The friend successfully took the purse and both he and the defendant fled.

Is the defendant guilty of robbery as an accomplice? Select one.

  1. No, because the defendant did not form the intent to assist until after the robbery had already begun.
  2. No, because the defendant did not physically touch the pedestrian or the purse.
  3. No, he is only an accessory after the fact because his assistance came after the initial taking.
  4. Yes, because his actions in blocking bystanders constituted aid provided during the commission of the crime. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter accomplice liability questions, focus on two key elements: the defendant's intent to aid the crime and whether they actually provided assistance during its commission. Why D is correct: The defendant is guilty as an accomplice because he provided meaningful assistance during the robbery itself. Even though he didn't initially plan the crime, once he decided to help, his actions of blocking bystanders from intervening directly facilitated the friend's successful completion of the robbery. Accomplice liability doesn't require advance planning—it only requires intent to assist and actual assistance during the crime's commission. Why the other answers fail: Choice A incorrectly suggests that forming intent after the crime begins prevents accomplice liability. The law allows for accomplice liability even when someone joins an ongoing crime, as long as they provide assistance before it's completed. Choice B makes the error of requiring physical contact with the victim or stolen property. Accomplice liability can be established through any form of assistance, including acting as a lookout or, as here, preventing interference. Choice C mischaracterizes the defendant's role—he's not an accessory after the fact because his blocking actions occurred during the robbery, not after its completion. Accessories after the fact help criminals avoid capture after crimes are finished. Key strategy: On accomplice liability questions, remember that assistance can take many forms beyond direct participation. Focus on timing (during vs. after the crime) and whether the defendant's actions actually helped the principal offender succeed.

Question 7

A woman intended to kill her husband. She asked a pharmacist for a poison that was slow-acting and difficult to trace. The pharmacist, who was in love with the woman, knowingly provided her with the poison for the purpose of killing her husband. The woman administered the poison to her husband. However, before the poison could take effect, the husband suffered a massive, unrelated heart attack and died instantly.

For which crime is the pharmacist most likely guilty as an accomplice? Select one.

  1. Murder, because he provided the means for the killing with the intent that the husband die.
  2. Attempted murder, because the husband's death was not caused by the criminal act he assisted. (correct answer)
  3. No crime, because the husband's death from natural causes was a superseding event.
  4. Conspiracy to commit murder, because there was an agreement but no resulting criminal death.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. To be liable as an accomplice to a completed crime, the principal must have successfully committed that crime. Here, the principal (the woman) did not cause the husband's death; he died of a heart attack. Her act of poisoning was a substantial step toward committing murder, so she is guilty of attempted murder. The pharmacist, having intentionally aided in this attempt, is therefore guilty as an accomplice to attempted murder. Choice A is incorrect because the pharmacist cannot be an accomplice to a murder that did not occur as a result of the principal's actions. Choice C is incorrect because the principal's actions constituted an attempt, and the pharmacist is liable for aiding that attempt. Choice D is plausible, as a conspiracy was also formed, but accomplice liability for the attempt is the most direct and accurate charge based on the principal's actions.

Question 8

A defendant owned a car that he knew had faulty brakes. He lent the car to his friend, who was visibly intoxicated. The defendant told his friend, "Be careful, the brakes are soft." The friend, whose judgment was impaired by alcohol, drove the car away, ran a red light, and was unable to stop in time, killing a pedestrian. A statute in the jurisdiction makes it a crime to knowingly permit an intoxicated person to drive one's vehicle. Another statute defines involuntary manslaughter as a death caused by criminal negligence.

In addition to violating the statute regarding the intoxicated driver, is the defendant also liable as an accomplice to involuntary manslaughter? Select one.

  1. Yes, because lending the car with faulty brakes to an intoxicated person was criminally negligent.
  2. No, because the friend's act of running the red light was an independent, superseding cause of the death.
  3. Yes, because the death of a pedestrian was a foreseeable result of the friend's drunk driving.
  4. No, because one cannot be an accomplice to a crime that only requires negligence. (correct answer)
Explanation: Accomplice liability requires that you intend to aid or encourage someone in committing a specific crime. This creates an important limitation when dealing with crimes that require only negligence rather than intent. The correct answer is D because accomplice liability fundamentally requires intent to assist in the commission of a crime. Since involuntary manslaughter is defined here as a death caused by "criminal negligence," it's a negligence-based crime that doesn't require intent. The friend didn't intend to kill anyone - he was criminally negligent. Because you cannot intend to help someone be negligent (negligence is by definition unintentional), accomplice liability cannot apply to purely negligence-based crimes like involuntary manslaughter. Answer A is wrong because even though the defendant's conduct was criminally negligent, criminal negligence alone cannot establish accomplice liability - you need intent to aid the principal's crime. Answer B incorrectly focuses on causation and superseding causes, but the issue here isn't about breaking the causal chain - it's about the mental state required for accomplice liability. Answer C makes the common mistake of confusing foreseeability (relevant for negligence) with intent (required for accomplice liability). Just because a death was foreseeable doesn't mean the defendant intended to aid involuntary manslaughter. Remember this key distinction: accomplice liability always requires intent to aid the principal's crime, regardless of what mental state the underlying crime requires. When you see accomplice liability questions involving negligence-based crimes, this fundamental mismatch in required mental states should immediately signal that accomplice liability won't apply.

Question 9

You are representing a client charged as an accomplice to burglary. The evidence shows that your client's roommate committed a burglary. The only connection between your client and the crime is that the roommate used your client's crowbar, which he took from a shared garage without your client's knowledge or permission. The day after the burglary, the roommate told your client what he had done and gave him $100 of the stolen money, saying, "Thanks for the use of the tool." Your client accepted the money and said nothing.

What is your client's best argument against a charge of being an accomplice to burglary? Select one.

  1. That he did not receive a substantial portion of the proceeds from the crime.
  2. That he was not physically present at the scene of the burglary.
  3. That his acceptance of the money makes him an accessory after the fact, which precludes accomplice liability.
  4. That he did not provide assistance with the intent to facilitate the crime. (correct answer)
Explanation: When analyzing accomplice liability, you must establish that the defendant intentionally assisted or encouraged the principal's crime. The key element is intent to facilitate the specific criminal act, not just knowledge after the fact. Your client has the strongest defense in option D because he never intended to help with the burglary. The roommate took the crowbar without permission or knowledge, meaning your client provided no voluntary assistance. Accomplice liability requires purposeful aid given with intent to promote the crime. Since your client was unaware his tool was being used and didn't voluntarily provide it, he lacks the requisite intent for accomplice liability. Option A is incorrect because the amount of proceeds received is irrelevant to accomplice liability. Even receiving a small portion wouldn't defeat the charge if other elements were met. Option B fails because physical presence at the crime scene isn't required for accomplice liability. You can be an accomplice by providing assistance before the crime occurs, regardless of where you are when it happens. Option C misunderstands the relationship between accomplice liability and accessory after the fact. These aren't mutually exclusive charges - accepting money afterward doesn't automatically preclude accomplice liability if you also helped beforehand. However, since your client didn't actually help beforehand, this distinction doesn't provide the best defense. Remember that accomplice liability hinges on intentional assistance. When you see accomplice questions, always analyze whether the defendant purposefully aided the crime, not just whether they had some connection to it or benefited afterward.

Question 10

A defendant owned a car that he knew had faulty brakes. He lent the car to his friend, who was visibly intoxicated. The defendant told his friend, "Be careful, the brakes are soft." The friend, whose judgment was impaired by alcohol, drove the car away, ran a red light, and was unable to stop in time, killing a pedestrian. A statute in the jurisdiction makes it a crime to knowingly permit an intoxicated person to drive one's vehicle. Another statute defines involuntary manslaughter as a death caused by criminal negligence.

In addition to violating the statute regarding the intoxicated driver, is the defendant also liable as an accomplice to involuntary manslaughter? Select one.

  1. Yes, because lending the car with faulty brakes to an intoxicated person was criminally negligent.
  2. No, because the friend's act of running the red light was an independent, superseding cause of the death.
  3. Yes, because the death of a pedestrian was a foreseeable result of the friend's drunk driving.
  4. No, because one cannot be an accomplice to a crime that only requires negligence. (correct answer)
Explanation: Accomplice liability requires that you intend to aid or encourage someone in committing a specific crime. This creates an important limitation when dealing with crimes that require only negligence rather than intent. The correct answer is D because accomplice liability fundamentally requires intent to assist in the commission of a crime. Since involuntary manslaughter is defined here as a death caused by "criminal negligence," it's a negligence-based crime that doesn't require intent. The friend didn't intend to kill anyone - he was criminally negligent. Because you cannot intend to help someone be negligent (negligence is by definition unintentional), accomplice liability cannot apply to purely negligence-based crimes like involuntary manslaughter. Answer A is wrong because even though the defendant's conduct was criminally negligent, criminal negligence alone cannot establish accomplice liability - you need intent to aid the principal's crime. Answer B incorrectly focuses on causation and superseding causes, but the issue here isn't about breaking the causal chain - it's about the mental state required for accomplice liability. Answer C makes the common mistake of confusing foreseeability (relevant for negligence) with intent (required for accomplice liability). Just because a death was foreseeable doesn't mean the defendant intended to aid involuntary manslaughter. Remember this key distinction: accomplice liability always requires intent to aid the principal's crime, regardless of what mental state the underlying crime requires. When you see accomplice liability questions involving negligence-based crimes, this fundamental mismatch in required mental states should immediately signal that accomplice liability won't apply.

Question 11

An activist group planned a protest at a construction site. One member of the group, a man, suggested they should vandalize the equipment to stop the project. Another member, a woman, strongly disagreed, stating, "We should be non-violent. I'm only here to hold a sign." At the protest, the man and several others began spray-painting slogans on a bulldozer. The woman stood nearby, holding her sign and chanting slogans. She did not physically block the vandalism or report it. She was arrested along with the others.

Is the woman guilty of vandalism as an accomplice? Select one.

  1. Yes, because she was present at the scene and did not attempt to stop the crime.
  2. Yes, because her presence could be seen as encouraging the other protestors.
  3. No, because she explicitly disavowed the plan to vandalize and did not intend to assist in it. (correct answer)
  4. No, because holding a sign is protected speech under the First Amendment.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. To be liable as an accomplice, a person must have the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime. Here, the woman explicitly stated her opposition to the vandalism and her intent was only to engage in a non-violent protest. Her mere presence at the scene, even with knowledge that a crime is being committed by others, is not sufficient to establish accomplice liability without evidence that she intended to aid, abet, or encourage the specific crime of vandalism. Choice A is incorrect because there is no general duty to prevent a crime, and mere presence is not enough for the actus reus. Choice B is weak because her prior disavowal negates the inference that her presence was intended as encouragement for the vandalism. Choice D is irrelevant; while her own sign-holding might be protected, the question is whether she is liable for the separate criminal acts of others.

Question 12

A woman gave her boyfriend a key to her apartment and told him he could hide there if he ever got into trouble. She knew he was involved in criminal activity but did not know of any specific plans. One day, the boyfriend robbed a bank and, without contacting the woman, used the key to enter her apartment to hide from the police. When the police later questioned the woman, she truthfully stated that she did not know her boyfriend was there. The police found the boyfriend in the apartment.

Is the woman liable as an accomplice to the bank robbery? Select one.

  1. Yes, because she provided the means for the boyfriend to conceal himself after the crime.
  2. Yes, because she knew he was involved in criminal activity when she gave him the key.
  3. No, because she did not know about the specific plan to rob the bank. (correct answer)
  4. No, because her assistance was provided before the crime was committed.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. Accomplice liability requires that the defendant have the intent to assist in the commission of the specific crime committed by the principal. Here, the woman did not know her boyfriend was going to commit a bank robbery. Her generalized assistance, offered for some future, unspecified 'trouble,' lacks the specific intent required to make her an accomplice to this particular robbery. Choice A describes being an accessory after the fact, not an accomplice to the robbery itself, and even then, she would need to know he had committed the felony. Choice B is incorrect because generalized knowledge of criminal tendencies is not sufficient; specific intent for the charged crime is required. Choice D is incorrect because providing assistance before the crime is precisely what an accessory before the fact (now an accomplice) does; the timing is not the issue, the lack of intent is.

Question 13

Two friends planned to shoplift some expensive electronics from a large department store. One friend agreed to act as a lookout while the other friend placed the items in a specially lined bag. Before they could execute their plan, the friend who was supposed to be the lookout had a change of heart. He sent a text message to the other friend saying, "I'm out. This is a bad idea. Don't do it." The other friend ignored the message, entered the store alone, and successfully shoplifted the electronics. The lookout friend never went to the store and did nothing else related to the incident.

Is the friend who sent the text message guilty of shoplifting as an accomplice? Select one.

  1. Yes, because he initially agreed to the plan, forming a conspiracy.
  2. Yes, because his encouragement may have contributed to the other friend's decision to commit the crime.
  3. No, because he effectively withdrew from the crime before it was committed. (correct answer)
  4. No, because he was not physically present at the scene of the crime.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. A person who encourages a crime can avoid accomplice liability by effectively withdrawing. To withdraw, the person must repudiate the encouragement before the crime is committed. Here, the friend explicitly repudiated his earlier agreement and encouragement by telling the principal not to commit the crime. Since his only contribution was encouragement (and not providing a physical instrumentality), this repudiation was sufficient to constitute a valid withdrawal. Choice A incorrectly conflates conspiracy with accomplice liability; even if a conspiracy was formed, withdrawal can still be a defense to liability for the substantive crime. Choice B is incorrect because the withdrawal negates his liability. Choice D is incorrect because physical presence is not required for accomplice liability; one can be an accomplice by providing assistance from afar.

Question 14

A statute in a jurisdiction defines statutory rape as sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16. A 20-year-old man wanted to have intercourse with his 15-year-old girlfriend. He asked his 19-year-old friend to help by letting them use his apartment. The friend agreed, knowing both their ages and the man's intentions. The man and his girlfriend used the friend's apartment to have consensual intercourse.

The 20-year-old man is guilty of statutory rape. Is his 19-year-old friend guilty as an accomplice? Select one.

  1. Yes, because he knowingly provided the location for the crime to occur. (correct answer)
  2. No, because the girlfriend, as the victim, cannot be an accomplice, and by extension, neither can a third party who merely assists.
  3. No, because the intercourse was consensual.
  4. No, because the friend did not participate in the act of intercourse.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. The friend had the required dual intent: he intended to provide assistance (let them use the apartment) and he did so with the knowledge and purpose of facilitating the crime of statutory rape. This satisfies the requirements for accomplice liability. The fact that he provided the location is a sufficient actus reus. Choice B is incorrect. While the victim of a crime (the 15-year-old) cannot be held as an accomplice due to being in the protected class, this protection does not extend to third parties who facilitate the crime. Choice C is incorrect because consent is not a defense to statutory rape, and therefore does not negate the friend's liability as an accomplice. Choice D is incorrect because an accomplice does not need to participate in the ultimate criminal act.

Question 15

A defendant worked at a chemical supply store. A customer, who the defendant knew was an amateur chemist, purchased a large quantity of a legal, commercially available chemical that is a known precursor for manufacturing illegal explosives. The defendant sold him the chemical, thinking, "I don't know for sure what he's doing, and I don't want to know, but this is a big sale." The customer used the chemical to construct a bomb and detonated it, destroying a building.

Under a statute punishing accomplice liability for destruction of property, is the defendant likely to be found guilty? Select one.

  1. Yes, because he sold a product knowing it was a precursor chemical for explosives.
  2. No, because the chemical was a legal product and the sale was a legitimate business transaction.
  3. Yes, because the defendant's willful blindness to the customer's purpose is equivalent to knowledge.
  4. No, because the defendant lacked the specific intent that the customer use the chemical to destroy property. (correct answer)
Explanation: When analyzing accomplice liability, you need to examine both the mental state (mens rea) and physical act (actus reus) required to establish criminal responsibility for another's crime. Accomplice liability typically requires that the defendant intended to aid or encourage the principal's criminal conduct. Here, the defendant lacks the specific intent required for accomplice liability. While he sold the chemical with some awareness it might be misused ("I don't know for sure what he's doing, and I don't want to know"), this falls short of the intent to assist in destroying property. The defendant was primarily motivated by making a profitable sale, not by a desire to help commit a crime. Option A is incorrect because merely knowing a product could be used for illegal purposes doesn't establish the intent to aid criminal activity. Knowledge alone is insufficient for accomplice liability. Option B reaches the right conclusion but for the wrong reason - the legality of the product and transaction doesn't automatically preclude accomplice liability if the defendant had the requisite intent. Option C incorrectly applies the willful blindness doctrine. While willful blindness can sometimes substitute for actual knowledge, it doesn't bridge the gap between knowledge and intent. The defendant may have been willfully blind to the customer's plans, but he still lacked the specific intent to aid in property destruction. The correct answer is D because accomplice liability requires specific intent to aid the principal's crime. Without evidence the defendant intended to help destroy property, he cannot be held liable as an accomplice, regardless of his suspicions about potential misuse. Study tip: Remember that accomplice liability requires both knowledge and intent - distinguish between "I know this might be misused" versus "I want to help commit this crime."

Question 16

A woman intended to kill her husband. She asked a pharmacist for a poison that was slow-acting and difficult to trace. The pharmacist, who was in love with the woman, knowingly provided her with the poison for the purpose of killing her husband. The woman administered the poison to her husband. However, before the poison could take effect, the husband suffered a massive, unrelated heart attack and died instantly.

For which crime is the pharmacist most likely guilty as an accomplice? Select one.

  1. Murder, because he provided the means for the killing with the intent that the husband die.
  2. Attempted murder, because the husband's death was not caused by the criminal act he assisted. (correct answer)
  3. No crime, because the husband's death from natural causes was a superseding event.
  4. Conspiracy to commit murder, because there was an agreement but no resulting criminal death.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. To be liable as an accomplice to a completed crime, the principal must have successfully committed that crime. Here, the principal (the woman) did not cause the husband's death; he died of a heart attack. Her act of poisoning was a substantial step toward committing murder, so she is guilty of attempted murder. The pharmacist, having intentionally aided in this attempt, is therefore guilty as an accomplice to attempted murder. Choice A is incorrect because the pharmacist cannot be an accomplice to a murder that did not occur as a result of the principal's actions. Choice C is incorrect because the principal's actions constituted an attempt, and the pharmacist is liable for aiding that attempt. Choice D is plausible, as a conspiracy was also formed, but accomplice liability for the attempt is the most direct and accurate charge based on the principal's actions.

Question 17

You are representing a client charged as an accomplice to burglary. The evidence shows that your client's roommate committed a burglary. The only connection between your client and the crime is that the roommate used your client's crowbar, which he took from a shared garage without your client's knowledge or permission. The day after the burglary, the roommate told your client what he had done and gave him $100 of the stolen money, saying, "Thanks for the use of the tool." Your client accepted the money and said nothing.

What is your client's best argument against a charge of being an accomplice to burglary? Select one.

  1. That he did not receive a substantial portion of the proceeds from the crime.
  2. That he was not physically present at the scene of the burglary.
  3. That his acceptance of the money makes him an accessory after the fact, which precludes accomplice liability.
  4. That he did not provide assistance with the intent to facilitate the crime. (correct answer)
Explanation: When analyzing accomplice liability, you must establish that the defendant intentionally assisted or encouraged the principal's crime. The key element is intent to facilitate the specific criminal act, not just knowledge after the fact. Your client has the strongest defense in option D because he never intended to help with the burglary. The roommate took the crowbar without permission or knowledge, meaning your client provided no voluntary assistance. Accomplice liability requires purposeful aid given with intent to promote the crime. Since your client was unaware his tool was being used and didn't voluntarily provide it, he lacks the requisite intent for accomplice liability. Option A is incorrect because the amount of proceeds received is irrelevant to accomplice liability. Even receiving a small portion wouldn't defeat the charge if other elements were met. Option B fails because physical presence at the crime scene isn't required for accomplice liability. You can be an accomplice by providing assistance before the crime occurs, regardless of where you are when it happens. Option C misunderstands the relationship between accomplice liability and accessory after the fact. These aren't mutually exclusive charges - accepting money afterward doesn't automatically preclude accomplice liability if you also helped beforehand. However, since your client didn't actually help beforehand, this distinction doesn't provide the best defense. Remember that accomplice liability hinges on intentional assistance. When you see accomplice questions, always analyze whether the defendant purposefully aided the crime, not just whether they had some connection to it or benefited afterward.

Question 18

A defendant worked at a chemical supply store. A customer, who the defendant knew was an amateur chemist, purchased a large quantity of a legal, commercially available chemical that is a known precursor for manufacturing illegal explosives. The defendant sold him the chemical, thinking, "I don't know for sure what he's doing, and I don't want to know, but this is a big sale." The customer used the chemical to construct a bomb and detonated it, destroying a building.

Under a statute punishing accomplice liability for destruction of property, is the defendant likely to be found guilty? Select one.

  1. Yes, because he sold a product knowing it was a precursor chemical for explosives.
  2. No, because the chemical was a legal product and the sale was a legitimate business transaction.
  3. Yes, because the defendant's willful blindness to the customer's purpose is equivalent to knowledge.
  4. No, because the defendant lacked the specific intent that the customer use the chemical to destroy property. (correct answer)
Explanation: When analyzing accomplice liability, you need to examine both the mental state (mens rea) and physical act (actus reus) required to establish criminal responsibility for another's crime. Accomplice liability typically requires that the defendant intended to aid or encourage the principal's criminal conduct. Here, the defendant lacks the specific intent required for accomplice liability. While he sold the chemical with some awareness it might be misused ("I don't know for sure what he's doing, and I don't want to know"), this falls short of the intent to assist in destroying property. The defendant was primarily motivated by making a profitable sale, not by a desire to help commit a crime. Option A is incorrect because merely knowing a product could be used for illegal purposes doesn't establish the intent to aid criminal activity. Knowledge alone is insufficient for accomplice liability. Option B reaches the right conclusion but for the wrong reason - the legality of the product and transaction doesn't automatically preclude accomplice liability if the defendant had the requisite intent. Option C incorrectly applies the willful blindness doctrine. While willful blindness can sometimes substitute for actual knowledge, it doesn't bridge the gap between knowledge and intent. The defendant may have been willfully blind to the customer's plans, but he still lacked the specific intent to aid in property destruction. The correct answer is D because accomplice liability requires specific intent to aid the principal's crime. Without evidence the defendant intended to help destroy property, he cannot be held liable as an accomplice, regardless of his suspicions about potential misuse. Study tip: Remember that accomplice liability requires both knowledge and intent - distinguish between "I know this might be misused" versus "I want to help commit this crime."

Question 19

A woman gave her boyfriend a key to her apartment and told him he could hide there if he ever got into trouble. She knew he was involved in criminal activity but did not know of any specific plans. One day, the boyfriend robbed a bank and, without contacting the woman, used the key to enter her apartment to hide from the police. When the police later questioned the woman, she truthfully stated that she did not know her boyfriend was there. The police found the boyfriend in the apartment.

Is the woman liable as an accomplice to the bank robbery? Select one.

  1. Yes, because she provided the means for the boyfriend to conceal himself after the crime.
  2. Yes, because she knew he was involved in criminal activity when she gave him the key.
  3. No, because she did not know about the specific plan to rob the bank. (correct answer)
  4. No, because her assistance was provided before the crime was committed.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. Accomplice liability requires that the defendant have the intent to assist in the commission of the specific crime committed by the principal. Here, the woman did not know her boyfriend was going to commit a bank robbery. Her generalized assistance, offered for some future, unspecified 'trouble,' lacks the specific intent required to make her an accomplice to this particular robbery. Choice A describes being an accessory after the fact, not an accomplice to the robbery itself, and even then, she would need to know he had committed the felony. Choice B is incorrect because generalized knowledge of criminal tendencies is not sufficient; specific intent for the charged crime is required. Choice D is incorrect because providing assistance before the crime is precisely what an accessory before the fact (now an accomplice) does; the timing is not the issue, the lack of intent is.

Question 20

A man decided to burglarize a warehouse. He asked an acquaintance, who worked as a locksmith, to make a key for the warehouse's back door. The man told the locksmith, "I lost my key and I need to get into my business's warehouse tonight to get some inventory." The locksmith was suspicious because the request was unusual, but he had no actual knowledge of the man's criminal purpose. For his standard fee, the locksmith created the key. The man used the key to enter the warehouse and steal valuable equipment.

If the man is prosecuted for burglary, is the locksmith also guilty as an accomplice? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the locksmith provided the instrumentality used to commit the burglary.
  2. Yes, because a reasonable person in the locksmith's position would have been suspicious of the man's purpose.
  3. No, because the locksmith did not share the man's criminal intent. (correct answer)
  4. No, because the locksmith was paid his standard fee and did not profit from the burglary itself.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. Accomplice liability requires a dual mens rea: (1) the intent to provide the assistance, and (2) the intent that the principal commit the target offense. Here, while the locksmith intended to make the key, he did not know of the man's criminal purpose and therefore did not have the intent for the burglary to be committed. Mere suspicion or knowledge that one's actions might assist in a crime is generally insufficient for accomplice liability, especially when the assistance involves the sale of ordinary goods or services. Choice A is incorrect because providing the instrumentality (the actus reus) is not enough without the required mens rea. Choice B is incorrect because a negligence or 'reasonable person' standard is not the standard for accomplice liability; intent is required. Choice D is incorrect because whether the accomplice profits from the crime is not determinative of liability, although it can be evidence of intent.