Conspiracy Flashcards
Conspiracy
1.A specific intent
2. To enter an agreement
3. With another
4. With the intent to accomplish the commission of a criminal offense pursuant to the agreement and
5. With the commission of an overt act in furtherance of that agreement by any party to the agreement
Actus Reus —The agreement
The essence or gist of conspiracy.
Look to the agreement to determine:
whether mens rea is present
whether there are really 2+ people involved
whether there is more than one conspiracy
The agreement is not a contract.
a mere tacit understanding is sufficient
no written or spoken expression is required
members need not know each other
Regle v State ( Md. App. 1970)
Who no agreement between 2 + parties to rob the restaurant? You need at least two people to have a conspiracy.
Kihnel (La. App 1986)
Why no conspiracy when co-conspirators are an informer and policemen?
Bi lateral vs unilateral agreements
A wants to burglarize a store.
A solicits B for assistance.
B agrees, but has no intent to actually go through within.
Thus, B lacks the mental state to be convicted of conspiracy.
But, what about A?
MPC Allows for A to be convicted of conspiracy
Can be convicted of A
A wants to burglarize a store.
Gebardi v US 1932
Conspiracy to violate the MANN act
Prohibited transportation across state lines of “any woman …for any … immoral purpose.”
Only the transporter was punished; not the woman transported.
Why no conspiracy?
“Evidence of an affirmative legislative policy to leave her acquiescence unpunished.”
Contrast the Wharton Rule
Macklowitz (NY Sup. Ct. 1987)
Conspiracy to possess cocaine?
Is an end user of cocaine in conspiracy with the whole chain for simple possession?
Why no agreement?
How do Jewsbury and Potwora differ? page 840
Where does the conspiracy chain end?
The state can also punish the sale, which necessarily involves two people.
**IMPORTANT You can’t have a conspiracy if the crime requires multiple people as the elements of the crime.
Mens Rea
Required intent 2 elements
1. intenet to agree
Different from proof of the existence of the agreement itself,i.e., proof of the act
Some states insist on an actual meeting of the minds
2. Intent to achieve objective
must take into account the mental state required of the underlying crime
the mental state for conspiracy must be at least the degree of intent necessary to commit the substantive crime
Basic Principles
There can be no conspiracy to commit a crime based on recklessness or negligence.
Conspiracy reaches farther back than attempt in time
. Thus, the overt act is not the same for both crimes.
The overt act of conspiracy is an act in furtherance of the agreement.
The substantial step in the attempt is an act in furtherance of the elements of the substantive crime.
US Feola v 1975
Conspiracy to assault a federal officer
The assault statute:
limitation to federal officers is jurisdictional
no specific intent required
Does the conspiracy require a specific intent to knowingly assault an officer?
No, the conspiracy statute does not require a specific intent if the substantive statute didn’t require one
Lauria Cal APP 1967
Conspiracy to commit prostitution?
Facts:
Lauria was a supplier of answering services
Knew that some of his clients were prostitutes
Only 9 or 10 of his clients were prostitutes
When does a supplier of goods and services becomepart of a conspiracy? Can intent be inferred from mere knowledge?
Providers of Goods & services
Falcone: no conspiracy in providing sugar, yeast, andcans to bootleggers
Direct Sales: drug mfr. guilty of conspiracy in providing quantities of morphine to a small-town physician
Inference of intent:
Δ has a stake in the venture, e.g., inflated prices
aggravated nature of crime itself○ no legitimate use of goods or services○ sales in inflated amount
Brown 2d cir 1985
Conspiracy to sell drugs & Sale of drugs
Convicted of conspiracy; acquitted of underlying crime—how is that possible?
Evidence of intent:
presence at scene of crime
timing of arrival gave seal of approval
directed Valentine
