Criminal Law And Procedure Learning Questions - Set 1 Flashcards
Under common law, the elements of a conspiracy include:
A
An agreement between two or more persons, an intent to enter into an agreement, an intent to achieve the objective of the agreement, and completion of the crime originally agreed upon.
B
An agreement between two or more persons, an intent to enter into an agreement, and an intent to achieve the objective of the agreement.
C
A written agreement between two or more persons, an intent to enter into an agreement, and an intent to achieve the objective of the agreement.
D
An agreement between two or more persons, an intent to achieve the objective of the agreement, and completion of the crime originally agreed upon.
B
Under common law, the elements of conspiracy include an agreement between two or more persons, an intent to enter into an agreement, and an intent to achieve the objective of the agreement.
The agreement between the parties need not be written.
Although most states require some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy for the crime of conspiracy to be complete, the crime agreed upon does not need to be completed for the conspirators to be guilty of conspiracy.
For the crime of conspiracy, which statement best describes the necessary intent?
A Only the intent to achieve the objective of the conspiracy
B The intent to agree and the intent to achieve the objective of the conspiracy
C The intent to agree or the intent to achieve the objective of the conspiracy
D Only the intent to agree
B
A defendant must possess both the intent to agree AND the intent to achieve the objective of the conspiracy to be convicted of conspiracy.
In most states, a defendant may be convicted of the principal offense and _______.
A
A solicitation to commit that offense
B
A conspiracy to commit that offense
C
An attempt of that offense
D A conspiracy, attempt, or solicitation to commit that offense
B
The doctrine of merger has been abandoned in many jurisdictions in cases involving a conspiracy, allowing an accused to be convicted of both conspiracy and the principal offense. However, an accused cannot be convicted of either attempt or solicitation and the principal offense.
A conspirator can be convicted of a crime committed by another conspirator if:
A
The crimes were committed in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy.
B
The crimes were committed in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy, and the crimes were foreseeable.
C
The crimes were committed in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy, or the crimes were foreseeable.
D
The crimes were foreseeable.
B
A conspirator can be convicted of a crime committed by another conspirator if the crimes were committed in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy AND the crimes were foreseeable.
A husband who believed that his wife was having an affair with his brother hired an arsonist to burn down the brother’s house. They planned for the husband to take his brother to a ballgame so that the arsonist would be able to set the house on fire without detection. After the husband and brother left for the ballgame, however, the arsonist decided to abandon the plan and immediately left town without doing anything further. When the husband returned from the ballgame with the brother, he saw the house still standing and blurted out what was supposed to have happened. The husband and the arsonist were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit arson. At the arsonist’s trial, his attorney argued that he was innocent of the conspiracy because he decided not to go ahead with the plan, and nothing criminal had in fact occurred.
At common law, how should a jury find the arsonist?
response - correct
A Not guilty of conspiracy, because going to a ballgame is not a criminal overt act.
B Not guilty of conspiracy, because the husband, not the arsonist, committed the overt act.
C Guilty, because the husband executed his part of the plan.
D Guilty, because the arsonist agreed to set the brother’s house on fire.
D
The arsonist should be found guilty. A conspiracy is a combination or agreement between two or more persons to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish a lawful act by unlawful means. The mens rea required for conspiracy is specific intent, in that both parties must intend to agree to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose. Thus, once the arsonist was hired by the husband and they came up with a plan to burn down the brother’s house, the crime of conspiracy was completed. (C) is incorrect because it implies that carrying out the plan by at least one party is required; the conspiracy was complete even before the husband fulfilled his duties under the plan. Note that, while most states now require an overt act for conspiracy, the common law version does not. (A) is incorrect. Even if an overt act were required, it need not be in and of itself criminal. (B) is also incorrect. If an overt act were required, it need only be performed by one of the co-conspirators, not necessarily the conspirator on trial.
In a property settlement after a divorce, the wife was awarded all personal property that had been accumulated during the marriage, including the husband’s classic 19-inch black-and-white TV set. In order to get his prized TV set back, the husband lied to his friend, telling him that the wife took the TV set in violation of the property settlement. The friend remembered that the wife gave the friend’s wife a key to her new home, and he volunteered to go with the husband to get the TV back while the wife was at work. The husband and the friend went to the wife’s house, but, unbeknownst to them, the wife had taken the day off work. After the friend noisily opened the back door with his wife’s key, the wife called the police, who quickly arrived and arrested the husband and the friend.
As to a charge of common law conspiracy to commit larceny, how should the friend be found?
A Not guilty, because he did not intend to steal.
B Not guilty, because he did not have a corrupt motive.
C Guilty, because there was an agreement, and the opening of the locked door was sufficient for the overt act.
D Guilty, because good motives are not a defense to criminal liability.
A
The friend should be found not guilty because he did not intend to steal. At common law, conspiracy consists of (i) an agreement between two or more persons, (ii) an intent to enter into an agreement, and (iii) an intent to achieve the objective of the agreement. The object of the agreement must be something unlawful. Here, the friend did not intend to achieve the objective of the conspiracy—to permanently deprive the owner of her property—because the friend thought the husband was the true owner of the TV. (C) is incorrect because there must be an agreement to reach an unlawful objective. Because the friend thought he was achieving a lawful objective, he did not have the intent required for conspiracy. (B) is incorrect because a “corrupt motive” is not an element of a crime. A person could be found guilty of a crime even if he did not have a corrupt motive, assuming all required elements for a crime are present. (D) is incorrect for a similar reason. “Good motive” is largely irrelevant; the intent, or lack thereof, is what is important.
A man and woman agreed to burn down a neighbor’s house in retribution for some wrong the neighbor allegedly committed against them. Both the man and woman were arrested shortly after they poured gasoline on the neighbor’s front porch. The man revealed to the police that he participated in the plan to ensure that nothing bad would happen to the neighbor, and that he had made an anonymous telephone call to the police alerting them to the crime, which enabled the police to arrest him and the woman “in the act.” The woman stated that she would not have participated if not for the man’s encouragement.
If the woman is charged with a conspiracy at common law to commit arson, how should she be found?
A Not guilty, because she was not predisposed to commit the crime but for the man’s encouragement.
B Not guilty, because the man did not intend to commit arson.
C Guilty, because there was an agreement, and pouring gasoline on the front porch was sufficient for the overt act.
D Guilty, because arson is not a specific intent crime.
B
The woman should be found not guilty of a conspiracy to commit arson. To be convicted of a conspiracy at common law, it must be shown that at least two persons agreed to achieve an unlawful objective. Having two or more persons is a necessary element of conspiracy under the traditional bilateral approach. Here, the facts indicate that the man did not intend to achieve the objective of the conspiracy—to burn the dwelling house of another. Thus, the woman cannot be guilty of conspiracy to commit arson. (C) is incorrect. The man feigned his agreement, making the answer factually inaccurate. (D) is also incorrect. Although it is true that arson is not a specific intent crime, conspiracy is a specific intent crime, in that the prosecution must show that the defendant intended to agree and intended to achieve the unlawful objective. Thus, the fact that the underlying crime is not a specific intent crime is irrelevant. (A) is incorrect. Even if the woman would not have committed the crime without the man’s inducement, that is not a defense for the woman. A person cannot be entrapped by a private citizen.
Three thieves agreed to rob a bank. The first was to steal a car to be used for the getaway, the second agreed to procure weapons, and the third would check the bank for cameras. The car thief stole a car and parked it in a lot behind his girlfriend’s apartment building. While visiting her the night before the robbery, the car thief suffered a series of convulsive seizures. He was rushed to the hospital where he was placed in the intensive care unit and heavily sedated. Meanwhile the two other thieves, unaware of their accomplice’s illness, met and decided to rob the bank on their own, despite the absence of a getaway car and driver. They robbed the bank, but were quickly apprehended as they tried to escape and implicated the car thief under police questioning.
The car thief can be charged with:
A Theft of the car only.
B Conspiracy to commit robbery and theft of the car only.
C Robbery and theft of the car only.
D Theft of the car, conspiracy to commit robbery, and robbery.
D
The car thief can be charged with theft, conspiracy, and robbery. The facts clearly show that the car thief is guilty of the theft of the car that was to be used for the getaway. Conspiracy requires: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the intent to enter into the agreement; and (iii) the intent to achieve the objective of the agreement. Most states also require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The car thief conspired to commit robbery, because he entered into an agreement with the two other thieves to rob the bank, intending both to enter into such an agreement and to achieve the objective thereof. The car thief’s theft of the car constituted an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Thus, the car thief can be charged with conspiracy. Furthermore, each member of a conspiracy is liable for the crimes of all other conspirators if: (i) such crimes were committed in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy; and (ii) such crimes were a natural and probable consequence of the conspiracy. A conspirator may limit his liability for subsequent acts of the other members of the conspiracy if he withdraws from the conspiracy by performing an affirmative act that notifies all members of the conspiracy in time for them to have the opportunity to abandon their plans. The car thief’s absence from the robbery scene with the getaway car was due to his sudden illness, rather than any voluntary decision on his part to withdraw from the conspiracy. Thus, the car thief failed to make a legally effective withdrawal from the conspiracy. Certainly, the robbery of the bank, which was the sole object of the conspiracy, was a crime committed in furtherance of the conspiracy’s objectives and was a natural and probable consequence of the conspiracy. Therefore, the car thief is liable for this robbery committed by his co-conspirators. Because the car thief can properly be charged with all three crimes, (A), (B), and (C) are incorrect.
