Commonwealth v. Roebuck
32 A.3d 613
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Victim lured to an apartment complex, ambushed, shot, and mortally wounded.
- Appellant participated in planning the events but did not personally shoot the victim.
- Appellant was charged with third-degree murder under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(c) and pursued accomplice liability under 18 Pa.C.S. § 306.
- Superior Court approved the use of accomplice liability for third-degree murder based on the statute’s (d) culpability provision for results, even when the underlying act was not intended to cause death.
- This Court reviews de novo the legal question of whether accomplice liability can apply to third-degree murder; the majority holds it can, under the Code and MPC framework.
- Justice ORIE MELVIN did not participate; majority affirms the Superior Court; concurrence by Justice Eakin concurs in result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can one be convicted as an accomplice to third-degree murder? | Appellant argues impossibility syllogism; accomplice liability requires intent to promote a crime, but third-degree murder is an unintended result. | Commonwealth contends accomplice liability extends to recklessness-based results under §306(d) consistent with MPC. | Yes; accomplice liability can attach to third-degree murder under §306(d). |
| Relation between §306(c) and §306(d) in result-based offenses | Appellant relies on §306(c) isolation, urging impossibility of liability for unintended results. | Commonwealth argues §306(d) governs result-based elements and extends liability. | §306(d) controls; accomplice liability can mirror principal’s culpability for result-based offenses. |
| Is the logic distinguishable from attempt/conspiracy doctrine? | Appellant cites attempts/conspiracies to argue impossibility for accomplice liability in reckless contexts. | Appellant’s logic misapplies distinctions; attempt/conspiracy require different mens rea. | Accomplice liability is distinct; it does not require intent to kill, only the culpability for the offense and aiding the conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Roebuck, 606 Pa. 290, 997 A.2d 1150 (Pa. 2010) (recognizes accomplice liability for third-degree murder under §306)
- Commonwealth v. Santos, 583 Pa. 96, 876 A.2d 360 (Pa. 2005) (malice in depraved-heart murder supports accomplice liability)
- Foster, 522 A.2d 281 (Conn. 1987) (accesorial liability does not require intent to cause the result; distinguish from attempt/conspiracy)
- State v. Anthony, 861 A.2d 773 (N.H. 2004) (discussion of MPC approach to accomplice liability limits)
- Commonwealth v. Weimer, 602 Pa. 33, 977 A.2d 1103 (Pa. 2009) (dissent discussing conspiracy to third-degree murder (cited by Appellant))