I heard that Prof. Chang told everyone at her last review to know 
the difference, so here's a GENERAL overview... (taken from several 
sources, one of which is Understanding Crim, pgs. 427-461; if you 
have it- READ IT!)

COMPLICITY- Liability for the Acts of Others
2 theories: (1) Accomplice; (2) Conspiratorial Liability


*****A C C O M P L I C E   L I A B I L I T Y*****
(Sara posted on this) Accomplice Liability is DERIVATIVE in nature.  
An accomplice is not guilty of aiding and abetting, instead the 
accomplice DERIVES his liability from the primary party with whom he 
associated himself.  The primary party's acts become his acts.  

Common Law
At CL, parties to a crime included the (1)PRINCIPAL in the FIRST 
degree (the person who actually engaged inthe act that constitutes 
the offense), (2)PRINCIPAL in the SECOND degree (person who aided, 
commanded, or encouraged the principal and was present at the crime),
(3)ACCESSORY BEFORE the fact (person who assisted or encouraged but 
was not present), and (4) ACCESSORY AFTER the fact (person who, with 
knowledge that the other committed a felony, assisted him to escape 
arrest or punishment.

At CL, conviction of the principal was required for conviction of 
the accessory and the charge must have indicated the correct theory 
of liability (ie as principal or accessory).

MODERN
Most jurisdictions have abolished the distinctions between 
principals in the first and second degree or accessories after the 
fact.  All such "PARTIES to the crime" can be found guilty of the 
principal offense.  For convenience, however, think of the one who 
actually engages inthe act or omission as the principal and the 
other parties as accomplices.

NOTE:  An accessory after the fact (one who assists another knowing 
that he has committed a felony in order to help his escape) is still 
treated separately.  Punishment for this crime usually bears no 
relationship to the principal offense.

MENTAL STATE-- INTENT REQ'D
To be guilty as an accomplice, most jurisdictions require that the 
person give aid, counsel, or encouragement to the principal with the 
INTENT to encourage the crime.  

DUAL INTENTS
(1) intent to ASSIST the primary party
(2) intent that the primary party COMMIT the offense charged

In the absence of a statute, most courts would hold that MERE 
KNOWLEDGE that a crime will result is not enough, at least where the 
aid given is in the form of the sale of ordinary goods at ordinary 
prices...

EXAMPLE
1. A gas station attendant WILL NOT be liable for arson for 
knowingly selling a gallon of gasoline to an arsonist.

However, (Sharon touched on this) procuring an illegal item or 
selling at a higher price because of the buyer's purpose (ie 
charging the arsonist $100 for the gallon of gas) may constitute a 
sufficient "stake in the venture" to constitute intent.

TYPES OF ASSISTANCE
(1) assistance by physical conduct
(2) assistance by psychological influence
(3) assistance by omission (assuming that the omitter has a duty to 
act)

SCOPE OF LIABILITY
An accomplice is responsible for the crimes he did and counseled AND 
for any other crimes committed in the course of committing the crime 
contemplated to the same extent as the principal, as long as the 
other crimes were PROBABLE or FORESEEABLE.

*** Just because you cannot be the principal does not mean that it 
bars you from being convicted as the accomplice.  EXAMPLE- At CL, a 
woman cannot be convicted of being the principal in a rape but can 
be found guilty as an accomplice if she aids the principal.
_____________________________________________________________________


*****C O N S P I R A T O R I A L   L I A B I L I T Y*****
A conspiracy is an agreement between 2 or more parties to commit a 
crime.

NOTE- I posted specificially on CONSPIRACY so this will be brief.  
Go to the "Yahoo Posts" section of our class web site and look 
up "Conspiracy" for more details.

ELEMENTS
(1) an agreement between 2 or more persons
(2) an intent to enter into the agreement
(3) an intent by at least 2 persons to achieve the objective of hte 
agreement
_____________________________________________________________________


*************Accomplice VERSUS Conspiratorial Liability*************

Conspiratorial Liability is a potentially broader form of liability 
than accomplice liability.

In most circumstances, an accomplice is ALSO a conspirator with the 
primary party in the commission of the crime.  

Example: if S drives P to a bank which P robs, serves as a lookout, 
and drives P away from the bank, it is reasonable to infer a 
conspiratorial meeting of the minds of S and P.  Indeed, even when a 
conspirator does not actively participate in the planning or 
commission of an offense, the sheer act of agreeing may serve as 
encouragement to the primary party, and thereby render the 
conspirator an accomplice in the commission of the crime.

***One can be a CONSPIRATOR without being an accomplice.  

PINKERTON v. US (p. 768 of your casebook- READ IT!)
S and P conspired to violate certain provisions of the IRS code.  
Thereafter, P violated the IRS code provisions.  However, he did so 
while S was in PRISON for some other unrelated crime.  The 
prosecutor did not claim that S assisted P in the planning or 
commission of the substantive offense.  And S's presence in prison 
negated any reasonable inference that his earlier act of agreeing 
encouraged P when he committed the crimes.  S's responsibility in 
P's conduct therefore, was not based on ACCOMPLICE principles, and 
had to find its source if any, in CONSPIRACY law.

*** ACCOMPLICE LIAB. in the absence of CONSPIRACY is also possible.
COMMONWEALTH v. COOK (p.797 of your casebook- READ IT!)
Example- P enters a bank to rob it; S, a customer observes P's 
actions and decides to assist in the crime by disabling a bank 
security camera.  Here P and S never agreed to commit the robbery 
together.  But S is P's accomplice in light of his assistance.  

In many cases, a person may be held responsible for the actions of 
anotehr either as an accomplice or a co-conspirator, sometimes, only 
one theory of complicity will apply.

According to the PINKERTON DOCTRINE, a party to a conspiracy is 
responsible for any criminal act committed by an associate if it:
(1) falls within the SCOPE of the conspiracy
(2) is a FORESEEABLE consequence of the unlawful agreement.

A conspirator's accountability exists even if HE DID NOT ASSIST the 
party whose committed the crime.
____________________________________________________________________


*********************COMPARISON OF THE TWO**************************

In many cases, accomplice and conspiracy liability OVERLAP.  
Example S and P agree to commit an armed robbery and work together 
in planning.  P commits the robbery.  S will be held accountable for 
the robbery under EITHER THEORY- as an accomplice or conspirator.

If P kills V during the robbery, S is accountable for the death 
under either theory; the killing was a natural and probable 
consequence of the crime in which S intentionally assisted; and the 
homicide is a foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy to commit 
the robbery.

*****ACCOMPLICE liability isn't as extensive in liability.  Under 
accomplice law, a person is only responsible for the natural and 
probable consequence of athe particular crimes in which the person 
has intentionally assisted.

____________________________________________________________________

NOTE:  MODEL PENAL CODE DISTINCTION

MPC-
A person is guilty of an offense if he commits it by his own conduct 
OR by the CONDUCT of ANOTHER person for which he is LEGALLY 
ACCOUNTABLE.   A person is legally accountable for the conduct of 
another person if he is an accomplice of the other in the commission 
of the criminal offense.

MPC REJECTS/DOES NOT FOLLOW the Pinkerton Doctrine of Conspiratorial 
Liability.  Under the MPC, a person is NOT accountable for the 
conduct of another solely because he conspired with that person to 
commit the offense.  

MPC REJECTS/DOES NOT FOLLOW the Common Law NATURAL AND PROBABLE 
CONSEQUENCES RULE...  The liability of an accomplice does not extend 
beyond the purposes that he shares.

MPC limitations to Accomplice Liability
A person is not an accomplice in the commission of the offense if 
any one of 3 circumstance exist:

1.  May not be convicted as an accomplice if he is the VICTIM of the 
offense.

2.  May not be convicted as an accomplice if his conduct 
is "inevitably incident" to the commission of the offense.  
(purchaser of narcotics is NOT an accomplice in the commission of a 
sale of the controlled substance)

3.  MPC established the defense of ABANDONMENT-- a person is not an 
accomplice in the commission of a crime if he terminates his 
participation before the crime is committed--  if he:

a) neutralizes his assistance
b) gives timely warning to the police of the impending offense
c) in some other manner attempts to prevent the commission of the 
crime.

Hope this helped!
Anna