Inchoate crimes Flashcards
Inchoate crimes - intent requirement
ALL need specific intent to commit the target offense
Inchoate crimes - types (3)
Solicitation - trying to get someone else to commit the crime. Key is COMMUNICATION
Attempt - “almost” committing the crime. Key is “CROSSING THE LINE” from prep to perp
Conspiracy - planning to commit a crime with someone else. Key is “CROSSING THE LINE” from thinking to collective preparation with another
Solicitation
Enticing, advising, inciting, urging, encouraging, etc
Modern majority - requesting another to commit virtually any offense
Specific intent (for them to actually DO IT) is always required. Offense complete when solicitation is made! Not withdrawable.
No requirement that they try to do it. If they do, solicitation MERGES into it and solicitor because ACCOMPLICE
Attempt
“almost” committing a crime. Two elements:
- specific intent or purpose to bring about criminal result; and
- significant overt act in furtherance, that proves DFT went past prep and to perp
Many jx use PROXIMITY test - how close in time/distance was the DFT to time/place of target offense?
Some use EQUIVOCALITY test - does DFT’s conduct “unequivocally indicate” that he was going to complete the target offense?
Common law - LAST ACT test. must do last act of the crime, like pull trigger
Defenses to attempt (3)
Abandonment - VOLUNTARY complete abandonment is a defense
Legal impossibility - DFT is NOT GUILTY if they thought they were committing crime but it wasn’t illegal
Factual impossibility - NOT A DEFENSE. DFT is GUILTY if they believed crime was factually possible but it wasn’t
Conspiracy
Planning to commit a crime with someone else. Requires agreement b/t 2+ persons and an overt act by any conspirator in furtherance. Must have specific intent BOTH to AGREE and to commit UNLAWFUL ACT.
Conspiracy - overt act
Common law: no overt act req at all! Agreement itself is crime
Modern majority: overt act in furtherance. Beginning prep is all that’s needed - can be very trivial, unlike attempt
Co-conspirator liability / Pinkerton Doctrine
Each co-conspirator is liable for the crimes of all of them where the crimes are BOTH:
- a foreseeable outgrowth of the conspiracy AND
- committed in furtherance of conspiracy’s goal
Conspiracy - “chain” relationship
Where several crimes are committed under one large scheme in which each member knows, explicitly or implicitly, of the other parties’ participation and a community of interest exists b/t them, one large conspiracy results and all links in the chain are liable for each others’ crimes
e.g. drug distribution conspiracy
Conspiracy - “wheel and spoke” structure
When one common member enters into conspiracies with others, multiple conspiracies exist, not one
This is when one “wheel” is the sole connection b/t various “spokes”
Conspiracy - acquittal of a conspirator
Common law: can’t have just one conspirator convicted, b/c two guilty parties needed for conspiracy conviction. If one person feigned agreement, no conspiracy, b/c no meeting of the minds
Model Penal Code: one party convictions OK, either for acquittals or feignings
Conspiracy - Wharton rule
Offenses that require two or more people as a necessary element can’t give rise to conspiracy to commit.
EXCEPTION: if agreement involves more people not essential to the definition of the crime, then “third party exception” permits ALL parties to be convicted of conspiracy
E.g. dueling - need two duelists, so no conspiracy b/t the duelists. If you add 2 seconds and a ref, everyone conspired
