Three individuals, Alex, Blake, and Casey, plan to rob a convenience store. Alex agrees to act as a lookout, Blake will act as the getaway driver, and Casey will conduct the actual robbery. While inside, Casey unexpectedly shoots the store clerk. Which of the following statements most accurately describes Alex's potential criminal liability?
Alex is not criminally liable for either the robbery or the shooting, as they did not commit any physical acts contributing to the crimes.
Alex cannot be held liable for the shooting because they never entered the store and did not personally pull the trigger.
Alex can be held liable for both the robbery and the shooting, as they intentionally aided in the commission of the robbery and the unlawful killing occurred during the underlying felony.
Alex is liable for the shooting but not the robbery since their role was limited to serving as a lookout and they did not directly participate in the robbery.
Alex can be held criminally liable for the robbery and the shooting under the doctrine of accomplice liability. Even though Alex did not physically commit the robbery or the shooting, by agreeing to serve as a lookout, Alex intentionally aided in the commission of the offense, making them an accomplice. Under the felony murder doctrine, accomplices to inherently dangerous felonies, such as robbery, can also be held liable for unintended deaths that occur during the commission of the felony. The other options are incorrect because they misstate the extent of accomplice liability or incorrectly assume Alex's lack of involvement absolves them of liability.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is accomplice liability?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the felony murder doctrine?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Can Alex be charged with a different crime for being a lookout?