South Carolina Law Review Volume 60 Issue 2 Article 1 2008 The Mental State Requirement for Accomplice Liability in American Criminal Law John F. Decker DePaul University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John F. Decker, The Mental State Requirement for Accomplice Liability in American Criminal Law, 60 S. C. L. Rev. 239 (2008). This Article is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Decker: The Mental State Requirement for Accomplice Liability in American THE MENTAL STATE REQUIREMENT FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY IN AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW JOHN F. DECKER* 1. INTROD U CTION .......................................................................................... 239 II. A FACIAL REVIEW OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE ................................. 244 A. Category I Statutes: "Specific Intent". .............................................. 245 B. Category II Statutes: "Statutorily PrescribedMental State" ........ 247 C. Category III Statutes: "Naturaland Probable Consequences........ 249 D. Statutes Requiring "Knowledge" Rather than "Intent" ................... 250 E. Statutes Lacking Any Mental State Requirement ............................... 251 F. Statutes Allowing for a Defense for the Victim of a Crime ................ 253 G. Statutes with Incidental Party Provisions.......................................... 253 H. Statutes with Withdrawal Provisions................................................. 254 I. Statutes with Liability for Persons Exempt from the Substantive Offense ................................................. 254 J. Statutes Containing an Innocent Agent Provision ............................. 255 K. Statutes Containing a Legal Duty Provision...................................... 256 L. Statutes Allowing for Liability of an Accomplice Without the Conviction of the Perpetrator......................................... 257 M. Statutes Only Pertainingto Felonies ................................................. 258 N. Statutes with Provisions Unique to Their ParticularState ................ 258 0. Statutes that Make Reference to the Common Law Distinctionsof Principalsand Accessories ........................................ 260 P. Statutes that Intertwine Criminal Facilitationor Conspiracy ........... 260 III. STATES WITH CASE LAW FOLLOWING THE CATEGORY I APPROACH: SPECIFIC IN TEN T ....................................................................................... 262 A . F lo rida ............................................................................................... 262 B . M ississippi .......................................................................................... 264 C . N ew M exico ........................................................................................ 265 D . O regon ...............................................................................................267 E . P ennsylvania...................................................................................... 270 F . T ex a s .................................................................................................. 2 7 2 * Emeritus Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law. J.D., Creighton University Law School; LL.M., J.S.D., New York University Law School. The author wishes to acknowledge the outstanding research assistance provided by Senior Research Assistant Kimberly Musick (Class of 2009) as well as the excellent support provided by Patricia Nikolaros, Christopher Reeder, and Alan Williams (Class of 2007); Jeffrey Alexander, Michael Kurtz, and Suresh Pillai (Class of 2008); and Lisa Duarte, Kathryn Idzik, Adam Sedia, Melissa Skinner, and Jason Roach (Class of 2009). Published by Scholar Commons, 1 South Carolina Law Review, Vol. 60, Iss. 2 [], Art. 1 238 SOUTH CAROLINA LAW REvTEw [VOL. 60:237 IV. STATES WITH CASE LAW FOLLOWING THE CATEGORY II APPROACH: STATUTORILY PRESCRIBED M ENTAL STATE ............................................. 275 A. "Codified" Category II Approach ..................................................... 275 1. Connecticut ................................................................................. 275 2. New York ..................................................................................... 278 3. Utah ............................................................................................. 280 4. Hawaii......................................................................................... 281 5. New Hampshire........................................................................... 282 6. Kentucky ......................................................................................286 B. "Judicially Construed" Category II Approach.................................. 289 1. Georgia....................................................................................... 289 2. Idaho ...........................................................................................291 3. M assachusetts ............................................................................. 294 4. New Jersey .................................................................................. 295 5. Oklahoma .................................................................................... 301 6. Rhode Island................................................................................ 303 7. Vermont ....................................................................................... 305 8. Wyom ing ...................................................................................... 310 V. STATES WITH CASE LAW FOLLOWING THE CATEGORY III APPROACH: N ATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES .............................................. 312 A. "Codified" Category IlI Approach .................................................... 312 1. Arizona ........................................................................................ 312 2. Iowa ............................................................................................. 315 3. Kansas ......................................................................................... 317 4. M aine .......................................................................................... 320 5. M innesota.................................................................................... 322 6. W isconsin .................................................................................... 323 B. "Judicially Construed" Category III Approach ................................ 325 1. Alabama ...................................................................................... 325 2. Arkansas ......................................................................................327 3. California.................................................................................... 329 4. Delaware..................................................................................... 332 5. Illinois ......................................................................................... 334 6. Indiana ........................................................................................ 336 7. Louisiana..................................................................................... 337 8. M aryland..................................................................................... 339 9. M ichigan ..................................................................................... 341 10. Nebraska ..................................................................................... 342 11. North Carolina............................................................................ 344 12. South Carolina............................................................................ 348 13. Tennessee .................................................................................... 349 14. Virginia ....................................................................................... 352 https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr/vol60/iss2/1 2 Decker: The Mental State Requirement for Accomplice Liability in American 2008] MENTAL STATE REQUIREMENT 239 VI. STATES WITH AMBIGUOUS, NOVEL, OR UNIQUE APPROACHES TO ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY ............................................................................ 356 A . Unresolved Issues .............................................................................. 356 1. Insufficient Case Law .................................................................. 356 a. A laska ................................................................................... 357 b. M ontana ............................................................................... 358 c. N orth D akota........................................................................ 360 d. South D akota ........................................................................ 36 1 2. D ivergent Case Law .................................................................... 364 a. M issouri................................................................................ 364 b . Oh io ...................................................................................... 36 5 c. W est Virginia........................................................................ 367 B. N onuniform R ules .............................................................................