ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of September 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues,' as stated by petitioner are:

(1) Is not the Superior Court’s holding in a published opinion that a defendant can be liable for the underlying conduct of another by virtue of being - a .co-conspirator inconsistent with the plain language of the governing statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 306, which provides for accomplice liability only, and with this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Knox, 105 A.3d 1194 (Pa. 2014)?

(2) Did not the. Superior Court erroneously analyze accomplice liability, and incorrectly conclude that the evidence was sufficient to convict on that theory?

(3) Did not the Superior Court err in . concluding that the evidence was *1031 sufficient to convict Appellant of conspiracy to assault the victim with Mace under 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, since he neither intended nor agreed to commit this crime?