Kent v. Ward

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that accomplice liability does not require specific intent to bring about particular result and can be established if Commonwealth establishes that accomplice acted with mental culpability required of principal actor
• “[T]he Commonwealth relied upon accomplice theory, which is codified in Section 306 of the Crimes Code along with other complicity-based accountability principles.”
• “[T]he required culpability [for accomplice liability] derives from the mental state required for liability of a principal . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).