## Facts

- Stanley Roebuck participated with others in a plan that lured the victim to an apartment complex in Allegheny County.
- The victim was ambushed, shot, and mortally wounded at the complex.
- Roebuck intentionally assisted in arranging the encounter and luring the victim, but did not fire the fatal shot.
- Firearms were part of the planned confrontation.
- The Commonwealth prosecuted Roebuck for homicide on an accomplice-liability theory.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant may be convicted as an accomplice to third-degree murder, given that accomplice liability requires intent to promote or facilitate the offense while third-degree murder is an unintentional killing committed with malice.
2. Whether 18 Pa.C.S. § 306(d) permits accomplice liability for result offenses when the accomplice has the culpability required as to the resulting death.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Superior Court’s order and upheld Roebuck’s third-degree murder conviction on an accomplice-liability theory.
- The court held accomplice liability may attach to third-degree murder if the accomplice acted with malice regarding the homicidal result.
- The court rejected the argument that accomplice liability is categorically incompatible with an “unintentional” killing.
- Applying the statute, the court concluded that intentionally participating in an armed ambush-type scheme could demonstrate malice—conscious disregard of an unjustified and extremely high risk of death or serious bodily harm.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 306(d), when causing a particular result is an element of an offense, a person who is an accomplice in the conduct causing that result is an accomplice in the offense if the person acts with the culpability sufficient for the offense as to that result.
- Third-degree murder requires malice, which includes conscious disregard of an unjustified and extremely high risk that one’s actions might cause death or serious bodily harm.
- For third-degree murder, accomplice liability does not require proof that the accomplice intended to kill; it requires intentional assistance in the relevant conduct plus malice as to the risk of the fatal result.
- Accomplice liability is distinct from attempt and conspiracy; it is not limited to situations where the defendant intends the specific result, so long as the statutory requirements for result liability are met.

## Conclusion

The court held that accomplice liability can support a conviction for third-degree murder in Pennsylvania when the defendant intentionally aids the conduct leading to the killing and possesses malice as to the risk of death, even though the killing itself is unintentional.


Commonwealth v. Roebuck, 32 A.3d 613 (Pa. 2011)