Complicity & Conspiracy Terms

Question 1

Old v. New accomplice definitions

Answer 1

• eliminated distinction between principals and accessories before the fact
• Now we say person is legal accountable for conduct of another when he’s an accomplish
• modern codes ID if nonconviction of principal prevents conviction of accomplice

Question 2

MPC v. Rosemond: actus reus & mens rea

Answer 2

Actus reus (similar)
- Rosemond: affirmative act in furtherance, no matter how slight
- MPC: aid or attempt to aid planning or commuting

Mens rea (different)
- Rosemond: “full knowledge”
- MPC: purpose of promoting or facilitating target crime

Question 3

Natural & Probable Consequences Doctrine

Answer 3

Rosemond: exception to the general rule when another crime is the natural improbable consequence of the crime D intended to abet

• liability extended to reach actual, rather than plan crime
• was the crime within the “zone of risk” of danger created? / foreseeable?
• General trend away from this
• many jurisdictions reject this
• Peoni: d sold counterfeit bills to second person, who resold. D liable for second persons but not 3d even though 3d could have been a probable Consequence

Question 4

Conspiracy

Answer 4

1: figure out what agreement is. Need actus reus and mens rea

Both an inchoate crime (conspiring to do something that was incomplete) and a theory of liability (can get everyone on the hook: vicarious liability)

• agreement ; mere association isn’t enough (must be intentional)

Question 5

Conspiracy v. Complicity

Answer 5

• conspiring does not necessarily make you an accomplice
• conspiracy: agreement
• accomplice: furthers intent

Question 6

Overt Acts

Answer 6

At CL, conspiracy is made as soon as there’s agreement

MPC, gov’t must prove any co-conspirator engaged in overt act in pursuance of conspiracy
- any prep story step (doesn’t have to be significant)
- tangible evidence (evidentiary requirement)