MPC § 2.06: Liability for Conduct of Another; Complicity
What does Liability for Conduct of Another; Complicity (Model Penal Code) provide?
Section 2.06 governs accomplice liability, establishing when a person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person. Under the MPC, a person is guilty of an offense committed by another person if they are legally accountable for the conduct. The section identifies three bases for such accountability: the person is an innocent or irresponsible agent acting at the defendant's direction, the statute makes the defendant accountable, or the defendant is an accomplice in the commission of the offense.
Source: Model Penal Code § 2.06
3-day free trial, then $9.99/month. Cancel anytime.
Summary
Section 2.06 governs accomplice liability, establishing when a person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person. Under the MPC, a person is guilty of an offense committed by another person if they are legally accountable for the conduct. The section identifies three bases for such accountability: the person is an innocent or irresponsible agent acting at the defendant's direction, the statute makes the defendant accountable, or the defendant is an accomplice in the commission of the offense.
A person is an accomplice if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, they solicit another to commit it, aid or agree or attempt to aid the other in planning or committing it, or have a legal duty to prevent the offense and fail to make proper effort to do so. The MPC requires purpose with respect to promoting or facilitating the conduct — mere knowledge that one's actions will assist a crime is generally insufficient. However, the required culpability as to the result element of the offense need only match what the underlying offense requires.
Section 2.06(6) provides important limitations. A person is not an accomplice if they are a victim of the offense, if the offense is defined so that their conduct is inevitably incident to its commission (the Wharton's rule concept), or if they terminate their complicity prior to commission and wholly deprive their assistance of effectiveness, give timely warning to law enforcement, or otherwise make proper effort to prevent the commission. Section 2.06(7) clarifies that an accomplice may be convicted even if the principal has not been prosecuted, has been convicted of a different offense, or has been acquitted.
Key Provisions
6 essential provisions of § 2.06
A person is an accomplice if they act with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the offense
Accomplice liability arises through soliciting, aiding, agreeing or attempting to aid in planning or committing the offense
Purpose is required as to the conduct element; the culpability for result elements matches the underlying offense
A person with a legal duty to prevent a crime who fails to do so can be an accomplice
Withdrawal defense: terminate complicity before commission and wholly deprive assistance of effectiveness, warn law enforcement, or make proper effort to prevent the crime
An accomplice may be convicted even if the principal is acquitted or not prosecuted
MPC vs. Common Law
How the MPC approach to liability for conduct of another; complicity differs from common law
The common law divided participants into principals in the first degree, principals in the second degree, accessories before the fact, and accessories after the fact, with complex procedural rules (e.g., an accessory before the fact could not be convicted until the principal was convicted). The MPC abolishes these distinctions and treats all accomplices alike. The MPC also resolves the long-standing debate about whether mere knowledge of another's criminal purpose suffices for accomplice liability — the MPC requires purpose, not mere knowledge. At common law, some jurisdictions allowed conviction based on knowledge alone in certain circumstances (e.g., a supplier who knows goods will be used for crime), while others required purpose. The MPC also provides a clearer withdrawal defense than common law, which had inconsistent rules about what an accomplice had to do to effectively withdraw.
Exam Relevance
How § 2.06 appears on criminal law exams
Complicity is one of the most frequently tested topics in criminal law. Common exam patterns include: distinguishing between purpose to facilitate and mere knowledge of criminal activity (e.g., a store owner who sells a legal product knowing it will be used in a crime); the natural and probable consequences doctrine (which the MPC rejects — unlike many common law jurisdictions, the MPC does not hold accomplices liable for crimes that are the natural and probable consequences of the aided crime); withdrawal scenarios testing whether the accomplice did enough to terminate complicity; and the attendant circumstance problem — what mental state is required for an accomplice as to circumstance elements. Students should note the MPC's requirement of purpose as to conduct but not necessarily as to result or circumstance elements.
Related Sections
Sections frequently studied alongside § 2.06
More from Article 2 — General Principles of Liability
Other sections in Article 2