General Crimes Flashcards
Accomplice Liability
Accomplices are liable for the crime itself AND all other foreseeable crimes
Not just present; MUST be actively in on crime.
Solicitation
Asking someone to commit a crime + intent that it be committed (refusal is no defense); Merges.
Conspiracy
(raise with accomplice)
Agreement (2 guilt minds) + intent to agree + intent to achieve unlawful purpose or objective of agreement + overt act;
Liability- Co-C is liable for other crimes if foreseeable and in furtherance of conspiracy;
Defenses= no impossibility, can only WD for future crime (not conspiracy itself); no merger
Attempt
Act done with intention of committing crime that falls short of completion; Modern: specific intent to commit target crime + substantial step toward commission (beyond mere preparation) [CL: “proximity test” = dangerously close to success.] Defenses: NO factual impossibility (but legal impossibility OK); NO abandonment after successful steps. Merges.
Specific Intent Crimes
- Solicitation
- Attempt
- Conspiracy
- First Degree Murder
- Assault (Attempted Battery)
- Larceny;Robbery
- Burglary
- Forgery
- False Pretenses
- Embezzlement
General Intent Crimes
- Battery
- Rape
- Kidnapping
- False Imprisonment
Malice Crimes
- Common law murder
2. Arson
Strict Liability
- Statutory Rape
- Selling Liquor to Minors
- Bigamy (some jurisdictions)
Enterprise Liability
At common law, a corporation does not have capacity to commit crimes. Under modern statutes, corporations may be held liable for an act performed by: (i) an agent of the corporation acting within the scope of his office or employment; or (ii) corporate agent high enough in hierarchy to presume his acts reflect corporate policy.
Withdrawal
A person who effectively withdraws from a crime before it is committed cannot be held guilty as an accomplice. Withdrawal must occur before the crime becomes unstoppable.
(i) Repudiation is sufficient withdrawal for mere encouragement
(ii) Attempt to naturalize assistance is required if participation went beyond mere encouragement.
Notifying the police or taking other action to prevent the crime is also sufficient.
Unilateral Approach to Conspiracy
Modern trend is MPC’s unilateral approach to conspiracy which requires that only one party have genuine intent. Accordingly, under the unilateral approach , a defendant can be convicted of conspiracy if he conspires with one person only and that person is a police officer working undercover
Bilateral Approach to Conspiracy
At common law, a conspiracy requires at least two guilty minds, i.e. persons who are actually committing the illicit plan. Under this “bilateral” approach, if one person in a two party agreement is only feigning agreement, the other party cannot be convicted of conspiracy. This requirement of two guilty minds gives rise to a number of problems.
Wharton Rule
Where two or more people are necessary for the commission of the substantive offense, (e.g. adultery, dueling), there is no crime of conspiracy unless more parties participate in the agreement than are necessary for the crime
Effect of Acquittal of Some Conspirators
Under the traditional view, the acquittal of all persons with whom a defendant is alleged to have conspired precludes conviction of the remaining defendant. In some jurisdictions following the traditional view, a conviction for conspiracy against one defendant is allowed to stand when the alleged co-conspirator is acquitted in a separate trial.
