What constitutes withdrawal defense under common law for accomplice liability?

• A. A mere cessation of participation suffices
• B. Withdrawal cannot be used as a defense
• C. Voluntary and complete withdrawal; if still aiding or encouraging, take substantial steps to prevent the crime
• D. Inform the authorities after the crime occurs

Answer: (C)

Withdrawal as a defense for an accomplice hinges on the actor’s ability to disengage in a meaningful way. Under common law, it only works if the withdrawal is voluntary and complete. Simply stopping participation isn’t enough to cut off liability. If the person has continued to aid or encourage the crime, they must take substantial steps to prevent the crime from happening or to thwart its completion—such as signaling the authorities or taking other concrete actions to stop the criminal venture. This combination of voluntary, complete withdrawal plus active steps to neutralize remaining involvement is why this approach is the correct understanding. Mere cessation, or acting only after the crime occurs, does not meet the standard.