Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 11.16.120 (2026)
Exemptions to legal accountability for 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. 11.16.120. Exemptions to legal accountability for conduct of another.
(a) In a prosecution for an offense in which legal accountability is based on the conduct of another person,
(1) it is an affirmative defense that the defendant, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of criminal intent,
(A) terminated the defendant's complicity before the commission of the offense;
(B) wholly deprived the defendant's complicity of its effectiveness in the commission of the offense; and
(C) gave timely warning to law enforcement authorities or, if timely warning could not be given to law enforcement authorities by reasonable efforts, otherwise made a reasonable effort to prevent the commission of the offense;
(2) it is not a defense that
(A) the other person has not been prosecuted for or convicted of an offense based upon the conduct in question or has been convicted of a different offense or degree of offense;
(B) the offense, as defined, can be committed only by a particular class of persons to which the defendant does not belong, and the defendant is for that reason legally incapable of committing the offense in an individual capacity; or
(C) the other person is not guilty of the offense.
(b) Except as otherwise provided by a provision of law defining an offense, a person is not legally accountable for the conduct of another constituting an offense if
(1) the person is the victim of the offense; or
(2) the offense is so defined that the person's conduct is inevitably incidental to its commission.
(a) In a prosecution for an offense in which legal accountability is based on the conduct of another person,
(1) it is an affirmative defense that the defendant, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of criminal intent,
(A) terminated the defendant's complicity before the commission of the offense;
(B) wholly deprived the defendant's complicity of its effectiveness in the commission of the offense; and
(C) gave timely warning to law enforcement authorities or, if timely warning could not be given to law enforcement authorities by reasonable efforts, otherwise made a reasonable effort to prevent the commission of the offense;
(2) it is not a defense that
(A) the other person has not been prosecuted for or convicted of an offense based upon the conduct in question or has been convicted of a different offense or degree of offense;
(B) the offense, as defined, can be committed only by a particular class of persons to which the defendant does not belong, and the defendant is for that reason legally incapable of committing the offense in an individual capacity; or
(C) the other person is not guilty of the offense.
(b) Except as otherwise provided by a provision of law defining an offense, a person is not legally accountable for the conduct of another constituting an offense if
(1) the person is the victim of the offense; or
(2) the offense is so defined that the person's conduct is inevitably incidental to its commission.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1984–2001 · leading case: Kott v. State, 678 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1984).
Kott v. State, 678 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1984). “AS 11.16.120(a)(2)(A), which became effective January 1, 1980, provides that in a criminal prosecution in which legal accountability is based on the conduct of another person it is not a defense that "the other person has not been prosecuted for or convicted of an offense based…”
In the Disciplinary Matter Involving West, 805 P.2d 351 (Alaska 1991). “AS 11.16.120(a)(2)(A). There is no distinction between accessories and principals to a crime.”
State v. Burden, 948 P.2d 991 (Alaska Ct. App. 1997). “See AS 11.16.120(b)(2), discussed in more detail below.”
Vaden v. State, 768 P.2d 1102 (Alaska 1989). “The court of appeals concluded that Snell had "committed the offense" of taking foxes from the air out of season, but that Snell had a personal defense of justification, which Vaden would not be able to avail himself of under AS 11.16.120. [6] 742 P.2d at 786 . The court further…”
Braun v. State, 911 P.2d 1075 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996). “) This rule is accentuated in AS 11.16.120(a)(2)(C), which states that a defendant remains criminally liable for another person’s conduct despite the fact that “the other person is not guilty of the offense”.”
Vaden v. State, 742 P.2d 784 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987). “The state points to AS 11.16.120 and argues that this statute permits it to prosecute Vaden even if Snell's acts did not constitute a crime because they were authorized by the state.”
Hansen v. State, 845 P.2d 449 (Alaska Ct. App. 1993). “AS 11.16.120(a) states: In a prosecution for an offense in which legal accountability is based on the conduct of another person, (2) it is not a defense that (A) the other person has not been prosecuted for or convicted of an offense based upon the conduct in question or has…”
Bowell v. State, 728 P.2d 1220 (Alaska Ct. App. 1986). “acting with the culpable mental state that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, the person causes an inno *1224 cent person or a person who lacks criminal responsibility to engage in the proscribed conduct] with AS 11.16.120(a)(2)(C) [in a prosecution for an offense…”
Wagers v. State, 810 P.2d 172 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). “120(b)(2), which states: (b) Except as otherwise provided by a provision of law defining an offense, a person is not legally accountable for the conduct of another constituting an offense if [[Image here]] (2) the offense is so defined that the person’s conduct is inevitably…”
Greinier v. State, 23 P.3d 1192 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001). “AS 11.16.120(a)(2)(A) declares that when a defendant is prosecuted "for an offense in which legal accountability is based on the conduct of another person", it is not a defense that .”
Ivanoff v. State, 9 P.3d 294 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000). “13 But Ken-worthy's potential liability for solicitation is dubious because, under AS 11.16.120(b)(2), 14 a purchaser of controlled substances is not legally accountable when his conduct is inevitably incidental to the commission of the offense.”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.16.120(a) — 1 case
Hansen v. State, 845 P.2d 449 (Alaska Ct. App. 1993). “AS 11.16.120(a) states: In a prosecution for an offense in which legal accountability is based on the conduct of another person, (2) it is not a defense that (A) the other person has not been prosecuted for or convicted of an offense based upon the conduct in question or has…”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.16.120(a)(2)(A) — 3 cases
Kott v. State, 678 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1984). “AS 11.16.120(a)(2)(A), which became effective January 1, 1980, provides that in a criminal prosecution in which legal accountability is based on the conduct of another person it is not a defense that "the other person has not been prosecuted for or convicted of an offense based…”
In the Disciplinary Matter Involving West, 805 P.2d 351 (Alaska 1991). “AS 11.16.120(a)(2)(A). There is no distinction between accessories and principals to a crime.”
Greinier v. State, 23 P.3d 1192 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001). “AS 11.16.120(a)(2)(A) declares that when a defendant is prosecuted "for an offense in which legal accountability is based on the conduct of another person", it is not a defense that .”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.16.120(a)(2)(C) — 2 cases
Bowell v. State, 728 P.2d 1220 (Alaska Ct. App. 1986). “acting with the culpable mental state that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, the person causes an inno *1224 cent person or a person who lacks criminal responsibility to engage in the proscribed conduct] with AS 11.16.120(a)(2)(C) [in a prosecution for an offense…”
Braun v. State, 911 P.2d 1075 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996). “) This rule is accentuated in AS 11.16.120(a)(2)(C), which states that a defendant remains criminally liable for another person’s conduct despite the fact that “the other person is not guilty of the offense”.”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.16.120(b) — 1 case
Braun v. State, 911 P.2d 1075 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996). “) This rule is accentuated in AS 11.16.120(a)(2)(C), which states that a defendant remains criminally liable for another person’s conduct despite the fact that “the other person is not guilty of the offense”.”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.16.120(b)(1) — 1 case
Greinier v. State, 23 P.3d 1192 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001). “AS 11.16.120(a)(2)(A) declares that when a defendant is prosecuted "for an offense in which legal accountability is based on the conduct of another person", it is not a defense that .”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.16.120(b)(2) — 3 cases
State v. Burden, 948 P.2d 991 (Alaska Ct. App. 1997). “See AS 11.16.120(b)(2), discussed in more detail below.”
Wagers v. State, 810 P.2d 172 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). “120(b)(2), which states: (b) Except as otherwise provided by a provision of law defining an offense, a person is not legally accountable for the conduct of another constituting an offense if [[Image here]] (2) the offense is so defined that the person’s conduct is inevitably…”
Ivanoff v. State, 9 P.3d 294 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000). “13 But Ken-worthy's potential liability for solicitation is dubious because, under AS 11.16.120(b)(2), 14 a purchaser of controlled substances is not legally accountable when his conduct is inevitably incidental to the commission of the offense.”
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.