Conspiracy

Question 1

Solicitation

Answer 1

• the crime of seriously asking someone to commit a crime

- not an attempt to commit the crime solicited

Question 2

Solicitation

Answer 2

Mens rea: specific intent that the person solicited commit the crime
Actus reus: commanding, encouraging, or requesting another person to commit a specific crime
- does not matter whether criminal act solicited took place or not
- defense if she voluntarily and completely renounced her original criminal intention and prevented the commission of the crime by the person solicited (MPC and some jurisdictions)

Question 3

Withdrawal / renunciation

Answer 3

Common Law: not a defense
MPC: a defense if D prevents the commission of the crime such as by persuading the person solicited not to commit the crime

Question 4

Solicitation

Answer 4

• a separate criminal offense AND
• one way to establish a person’s accomplice liability for commission of the substantive offense if that offense is committed subsequently by the person solicited
• MPC: solicitation is a crime with respect to any target crime
• Minority jurisdictions: solicitation is only an offense of specific crimes, (murder, prostitution or serious felonies)

Question 5

Mergers

Answer 5

• Solicitation merges with murder
• Attempt merges with murder
• Conspiracy DOES NOT merge with murder
• Solicitation merges with conspiracy and completed crime
  Solicitation merges with attempt

Question 6

Differences

Answer 6

• conspiracy exists where solicitation results in commission of crime by person solicited
• the act element of solicitation includes conduct that falls short of the conduct necessary - a conspiratorial agreement - to establish a criminal conspiracy

Question 7

Options

Answer 7

1: solicitation
2: attempt
3: substantive offense (jury can decide to convict of attempt only [a lesser included])
4: conspiracy, substantive offense

Question 8

Conspiracy

Answer 8

1. An agreement between two or more persons;
2. an intent to enter into an agreement, and
3. an intern to achieve the objective of the agreement

Question 9

Modern common law conspiracy

Answer 9

Actus reus:

1) an agreement
2) between two or more people
3) to perform an unlawful act, or a lawful act through unlawful means
4) over act in furtherance of agreement

Question 10

MPC conspiracy

Answer 10

1) person is guilty of conspiracy if with the PURPOSE of promoting or facilitating its commission he:
a) agrees with such other persons that they will engage in conduct that constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime, or
b) agrees to aid such persons in the planning or commission of such crime or an attempt/solicitation to commit crime
5) no person convicted of conspiracy other thant first of second degree felony unless overt act is alleged and proved

Question 11

modern common law conspiracy

Answer 11

1) an agreement
2) between two or more people
3) to perform and unlawful act, or a lawful act through unlawful means and
4) over act if furtherance of agreement
Mens rea - Specific intent
1) intent to agree and
2) intent that the crime is committed - the objective of the agreement is accomplished

Question 12

Common law conspiracy charging

Answer 12

• D can be convicted of and punished for both crimes
  1) conspiring to commit a crime and
  2) actually committing it

Question 13

MPC conspiracy charging

Answer 13

• D can’t be convicted of conspiring to commit X and committing X

Question 14

2 types of conspiracy agreements

Answer 14

1) wheel conspiracy

2) chain conspiracy

Question 15

Wheel conspiracy

Answer 15

• central figure independently reaches out to others who know of each other’s role
• to establish one agreement, have to prove unifying agreement between conspirators (hard to establish)

Question 16

Chain conspiracy

Answer 16

range of individuals involved in continuing course of conduct in a series of criminal acts (best example - drug distribution conspiracy)

Question 17

Overt act

Answer 17

An overt act committed by a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy does not have to necessarily violate the law
EX: purchase of boat or vehicle is not an illegal act

Question 18

Limit 1: Wharton’s Rule

Answer 18

crime by nature requires agreement of two people to engage in conduct so no additional conspiracy charges can apply
(gambling, bigamy, adultery, incest, bribery, extortion, sale of stolen property, unlawful restraint on trade, simple drug sales)

Question 19

Limit 2: Abandonment and renunciation [Common law]

Answer 19

• agreement is from
• overt act is committed
• abandonment/withdrawal is not a defense to conspiracy

Question 20

Limit 2: Abandonment and renunciation [MPC]

Answer 20

• affirmative defense if D thwarts the success of the conspiracy demonstrating a complete and voluntary renunciation
  1) must withdraw/renounce the criminal purpose and
  2) must negate the danger of the group D joined (affirmative act: effort to stop crime or notify authorities
• a conspiracy continues unless terminated or abandoned. Abandonment assumed if no overt act is done and person abandons conspiracy as to him only id he advises conspirators of his abandonment or informs police of conspiracy

Question 21

Pinkerton Liability

Answer 21

Co-conspirator is criminally liable for all foreseeable crimes committed in furtherance of conspiracy

Question 22

MPC rejects Pinkerton

Answer 22

A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another when:

1) acting with the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, he causes an innocent or irresponsible person to engage in such conduct, or
2) he is made accountable for the conduct of such other person by the code or law defining the offense,or
3) he is an accomplice of such other persons in the commission of the offense