Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 11.16.110 (2026)
Legal accountability based upon the conduct of another
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 11.16.110. Legal accountability based upon the conduct of another.
A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another constituting an offense if
(1) the person is made legally accountable by a provision of law defining the offense;
(2) with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense, the person
(A) solicits the other to commit the offense; or
(B) aids or abets the other in planning or committing the offense; or
(3) acting with the culpable mental state that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, the person causes an innocent person or a person who lacks criminal responsibility to engage in the proscribed conduct.
A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another constituting an offense if
(1) the person is made legally accountable by a provision of law defining the offense;
(2) with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense, the person
(A) solicits the other to commit the offense; or
(B) aids or abets the other in planning or committing the offense; or
(3) acting with the culpable mental state that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, the person causes an innocent person or a person who lacks criminal responsibility to engage in the proscribed conduct.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Riley v. State, 60 P.3d 204 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002).
Riley v. State, 60 P.3d 204 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002). “Rather, the State had to prove that Riley acted recklessly with respect to the possibility that serious physical injury would be inflicted on another person through (1) Riley’s own conduct or (2) the conduct of another for which Riley was accountable under AS 11.16.110. And, to…”
Spencer v. State, 164 P.3d 649 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “(AS 11.16.110 actually specifies three different ways in which a person can be held criminally accountable for conduct performed by another person.”
Echols v. State, 818 P.2d 691 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). “" In analyzing AS 11.16.110, we start with the fact that the statute requires the accomplice to act " with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense " (emphasis supplied).”
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007). “§ 76-2-202 (Lexis 2003); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit.”
Steven Michael Hinshaw v. State of Alaska, 515 P.3d 129 (Alaska Ct. App. 2022). “110(a)(1)-(2) & AS 11.16.110. 14 AS 11.61.190(a)(2) & AS 11.”
Baker v. State, 905 P.2d 479 (Alaska Ct. App. 1995). “100 states the general rule of criminal liability without reference to the terms “principal” and “accessory”: A person is guilty of an offense if it is committed by the person’s own conduct[,] or by the conduct of another for which the person is legally accountable under AS…”
Andrew v. State, 237 P.3d 1027 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). “s that the evidence showed that she was present when Haws committed these crimes, and that she might have been aware that Haws was committing these crimes, but Andrew contends that there was no evidence that she actively participated in these crimes, or that she purposely aided…”
Ashenfelter v. State, 988 P.2d 120 (Alaska Ct. App. 1999). “Under AS 11.16.110(2), all accomplice behavior must be "purposeful".”
Erickson v. State, 824 P.2d 725 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). “1991), we concluded that a defendant can be convicted as an accomplice under AS 11.16.110 only if the defendant intended to promote or facilitate the commission of the specific offense.”
Smith v. State, 948 P.2d 473 (Alaska 1997). “050 (misconduct involving a controlled substance in the fifth degree); AS 11.16.110 (accountability for causing another to engage in proscribed conduct); AS 11.”
Hansen v. State, 845 P.2d 449 (Alaska Ct. App. 1993). “Under AS 11.16.110(2), complicity requires proof, not just that the defendant knew of someone else’s desire to commit a crime, and not just that the defendant provided aid or encouragement to that other person, but also that the defendant intended to “promote or facilitate” the…”
Knutson v. State, 736 P.2d 775 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987). “100 or AS 11.16.110 to Title 11 offenses. In addition, we see no reasons in law or in policy for restricting the application of AS 11.”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.16.110(2) — 20 cases
Riley v. State, 60 P.3d 204 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002). “Rather, the State had to prove that Riley acted recklessly with respect to the possibility that serious physical injury would be inflicted on another person through (1) Riley’s own conduct or (2) the conduct of another for which Riley was accountable under AS 11.16.110. And, to…”
Spencer v. State, 164 P.3d 649 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “(AS 11.16.110 actually specifies three different ways in which a person can be held criminally accountable for conduct performed by another person.”
Ashenfelter v. State, 988 P.2d 120 (Alaska Ct. App. 1999). “Under AS 11.16.110(2), all accomplice behavior must be "purposeful".”
Echols v. State, 818 P.2d 691 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). “" In analyzing AS 11.16.110, we start with the fact that the statute requires the accomplice to act " with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense " (emphasis supplied).”
Baker v. State, 905 P.2d 479 (Alaska Ct. App. 1995). “100 states the general rule of criminal liability without reference to the terms “principal” and “accessory”: A person is guilty of an offense if it is committed by the person’s own conduct[,] or by the conduct of another for which the person is legally accountable under AS…”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.16.110(2)(A) — 4 cases
Leonard J. Hoffman, State of Alaska, 950 P.2d 141 (Alaska Ct. App. 1997).
Avila v. State, 22 P.3d 890 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Jouppi, 397 P.3d 1026 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017).
Lammar David Burney v. State of Alaska, Jamal Kareem Townsend v. State of Alaska, 563 P.3d 86 (Alaska Ct. App. 2025).
— Alaska Stat. § 11.16.110(2)(B) — 16 cases
In the Disciplinary Matter Involving West, 805 P.2d 351 (Alaska 1991).
Riley v. State, 60 P.3d 204 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002). “Rather, the State had to prove that Riley acted recklessly with respect to the possibility that serious physical injury would be inflicted on another person through (1) Riley’s own conduct or (2) the conduct of another for which Riley was accountable under AS 11.16.110. And, to…”
MacHado v. State, 797 P.2d 677 (Alaska Ct. App. 1990).
Bowell v. State, 728 P.2d 1220 (Alaska Ct. App. 1986).
Maness v. State, 49 P.3d 1128 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002).
— Alaska Stat. § 11.16.110(3) — 2 cases
Bowell v. State, 728 P.2d 1220 (Alaska Ct. App. 1986).
State v. Jouppi, 397 P.3d 1026 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017).
— Alaska Stat. § 11.16.110(a) — 1 case
Patrick Dale Burton-Hill v. State of Alaska, Jerald Dwayne Burton Jr. v. State of Alaska, Marcus Djaun Howard v. State of Alaska, 500 P.3d 1016 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.