INCHOATE CRIMES

Question 1

Inchoate Crimes Checklist

Answer 1

• Solicitation
• Solicitation Defenses
  
  • Renunciation
  • Factual Impossibility
• Conspiracy
  
  • Merger Doctrine
• Conspiracy Defenses
  
  • Withdrawal
    
    • Liability for Conspiracy
    • Liability for Substantive Crimes
• Attempt
• Attempt Defenses

Question 2

Solicitation

Answer 2

Solicitation is (1) tempting, inciting, persuading, requesting, or commanding another (2) to commit a crime (3) with specific intent that the solicited person commit the crime

Question 3

Solicitation Defenses - Renunciation

Answer 3

Under common law, renunciation was not a defense to solicitation. Under the Model Penal Code, renunciation may be a defense if the defendant also prevents the commission of a solicited crime.

Question 4

Solicitation Defenses - Factual Impossibility

Answer 4

Factual impossibility is not a defense to solicitation

Question 5

Conspiracy

Answer 5

A conspiracy is (1) an agreement between two or more people with (2) the intent to enter into an agreement, (3) the specific intent to achieve the criminal objective, and (4) an overt act

Question 6

Conspiracy (1) Agreement

Answer 6

The agreement can either be implicit or explicit. Mere knowledge of a crime is insufficient

Question 7

Conspiracy (2) and (3) Specific Intent

Answer 7

A conspirator must have the specific intent to agree and the specific intent to achieve the criminal objective

Question 8

Conspiracy (4) Overt Act

Answer 8

Under common law, no overt act was required. Under modern law, the majority of jurisdictions require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Question 9

Conspiracy - Merger Doctrine

Answer 9

The merger doctrine is inapplicable to conspiracy, so the conspiracy does not merge with the underlying crime. Therefore, the participants can be convicted of both the conspiracy and the underlying crime

Question 10

Conspiracy - Scope of Liability

Answer 10

Majority Rule - Under the Pinkerton Rule, a conspirator can be liable for the conspiracy and a co-conspirator’s substantive and foreseeable crimes that are in furtherance of the conspiracy

Minority Rule- Under the minority rule, a conspirator will not be liable for a co-conspirator’s crimes unless he aids and abets in their commission

Question 11

Conspiracy Defenses - Withdrawal

Answer 11

Liability for Conspiracy - Generally, withdrawal is not a defense to conspiracy because the conspiracy is complete once the conspirators enter into an agreement to commit a crime and an overt act is committed. Under the Modern Penal Code, withdrawal may be a valid defense if the defendant thwarts the success of the conspiracy

Liability for Substantive Crimes - a defendant may limit his liability for the successive crimes of his co-conspirator by (i) notifying all members to the conspiracy of his intention to withdraw or (ii) timely contacting the authorities

Question 12

Attempt

Answer 12

Attempt requires (1) the specific intent to achieve an unlawful result and (2) a substantial step toward achieving that result

Specific Intent - the defendant must have specific intent to commit a crime. The ratite need not be a specific intent crime.

Substantial Step - The defendant must take a substantial step toward committing the crime and in furtherance of his specific intent. Mere preparation is insufficient

Merger Doctrine - the merger doctrine is applicable to attempt, so the attempt merges into the completed crime

Question 13

Attempt Defenses

Answer 13

Withdrawal - Generally, withdrawal is not a defense to attempt. Once a substantial step has been taken, the defendant cannot assert abandonment as a defense.

Factual Impossibility - Factual impossibility, meaning circumstances unknown to the defendant prevent the completion of the crime, is not a defense to attempt

Legal Impossibility - Legal impossibility, meaning the defendant’s actions are not unlawful regardless of his belief, is a complete defense to attempt