Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Criminal Law > Inchoate Crimes & Accomplice Liability > Flashcards

Inchoate Crimes & Accomplice Liability Flashcards

1
Q

Define

Inchoate crimes

A

“Incomplete” crimes
* Attempt
* Conspiracy
* Solicitation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the mens rea for attempt?

A

Specific intent to commit the underlying crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the actus reus for attempt?

A

“Overt act” in furtherance of intent to commit underlying crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Can you be charged with attempt for crimes that have a mens rea of recklessness or negligence?

A

No, because attempt requires specific intent to commit the underlying crime.

⚠️ Note: if D knows that a result is practically certain to occur, the requisite intent may exist for an attempt charge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What are the 3 tests to determine if there has been an overt act for an attempt?

A
  1. Dangerous Proximity Test (majority):
  2. . Substantial Step (MPC)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is the dangerous proximity test?

A

Looks at whether D came within dangerous proximity to completing the crime, or “so near to the result that the danger of success is very great.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Under the MPC, what is the substantial step test?

A

An act is an overt act if it is:

1) A “substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in [D’s] commission of the crime”; and
2) Is strongly corroborative of D’s criminal intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Does mere preparation qualify as a substantial step?

A

As a general rule, no - it must go beyond mere preparation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What are examples of actions considered substantial steps under the MPC?

A
  • Lying in wait, searching for or following the contemplated victim of the crime;
  • Enticing or seeking to entice the contemplated victim of the crime to go to the place contemplated for its commission;
  • Reconnoitering the place contemplated for the commission of the crime;
  • Unlawful entry of a structure, vehicle or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be committed;
  • Possession or collection of materials that serve no lawful purpose under the circumstances; or
  • Soliciting an innocent agent to engage in criminal conduct
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is the impossibility defense to attempt?

A

Argues that even though D did everything he could to complete the offense, external circumstances thwarted his ability to successfully complete it.

⚠️ Remember to distinguish between factual and legal impossibility. Many states have outlawed the factual impossibility defense, but allow for the legal impossiblity defense.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is factual impossibility and is it a successful defense to attempt?

A

Occurs when D is unable to complete a crime, but if the facts had been what D supposed them to be, the act would have been a crime.

Never a valid defense to attempt.

Ex. Max wants to buy meth from Ian, but Ian sold him cornstarch instead. Since Max thought that he was buying meth, the fact that he was sold cornstarch is not a valid defense.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is legal impossibility and is it a valid defense?

A

Arises when the D thinks they are committing a crime, but their actions are actually lawful.

It is a valid defense.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Is renunciation a valid defense to attempt?

A

Renunciation is a valid defense under the MPC and in some states if:

D completely and voluntarily withdraws (i.e. withdrawal is not based on apprehension of being caught or waiting for a better time);
Before completion of the crime
⚠️ Many states have adopted the MPC’s recognition of the renunciation defense, but others have not. Make sure read the question carefully.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

If D withdraws after learning that the police are aware of the plan, does this constitute a voluntary withdrawal?

A

No, withdrawing out of fear of from newly discovered information about being caught is not considered voluntary

However, if D has general fear about being caught, this will qualify as voluntary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Elements of common law solicitation

A
  1. Enticing, advising, requesting, or otherwise endeavoring to persuade another person;
  2. To commit a crime;
  3. With the intent the other person commits the crime
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

When is solicitation complete?

A

As soon as the D entices or encourages someone to commit a crime.

The other person does not need to agree to commit the crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Is withdrawal a defense to solicitation?

A

Allowed by some courts and the MPC if:

Renunciation was voluntary; and
D prevents commission of the crime
⚠️ Not recognized by common law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Is factual impossibility a valid defense to solicitation?

A

No. Legal impossibility may be, but factual impossibility is not.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Is a solicitee’s refusal to complete the crime a valid defense to solicitation?

A

No because solicitation is complete as soon as D encourages, whether or not solicitee agrees is irrelevant

20
Q

Distinguish between solitication and attempt

A

Solicitation: mere encouragement or inticement

Attempt: substantial steps taken to prepare for crime

21
Q

Elements of conspiracy

A
  1. **Intentional agreement **between two or more persons;
  2. To commit an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means; and
  3. An overt act in furtherance of the unlawful act (only required for half the states and the MPC)
22
Q

Explain the overt act requirement for conspiracy under the MPC

A
  • Act must be in furtherance of the conspiracy
  • Mere preparation is not sufficient
  • “One bad apple spoils the bunch” → If one co-conspirator does an overt act, it will be attributed to all persons involved
23
Q

Is a “meeting of the minds” required for conspiracy?

A

No, only that the parties agree to pursue a common objective. Parties do not even need to know about each other.

24
Q

Do co-conspirators need to know about each other for a criminal conspiracy to exist?

25
For the purposes of conspiracy, is it sufficient for D to know that his actions **might** further a criminal action?
No, the D must **intend** for his actions to futher criminal conduct. Mere knowledge is not enough.
26
Are D’s liable for the crimes committed by their **co-conspirators**?
Under the Pinkerton Doctrine of Liability, co-conspirators are liable for crimes that are: **Foreseeable**; and Committed in **furtherance** of the conspiracy
27
Under common law, does **mere membership** in a conspiracy subject co-conspirators to liability when another co-conspirator commits a crime **without the direct aid** of the others? Under MPC?
Common law: **Yes**, since those crimes are reasonably **foreseeable** MPC/Modern Courts: Less likely to hold co-conspirators liable **without evidence of further involvement**
28
# Define **"Chain"** conspiracies
Conspiracies with a **series of events** that are dependent on each other, each of which furthers the object of the conspiracy.
29
# Define **"Hub and Spoke"** conspiracies
When one person (the ring leader or hub) enters into agreements with individuals (individual spokes). The individual spokes may not know about each other.
30
When is a **“hub and spoke”** conspiracy considered one large conspiracy instead of several smaller ones?
1. Each participant is **aware** that other participants exist (but they do not need know them); and 2. Participants understand that they exist in a **“community of interest”**
31
# Define "Unilateral" Conspiracy
When a **single party** is charged with conspiracy. Ex. if D is conspiring with someone who is an undercover police officer ⚠️ Note: Only allowed under the MPC and some states; not allowed under common law
32
# Define Wharton's Rule
If the target offense **requires two or more people**, then a conspiracy charge cannot be brought. For example, there can be no conspiracy for adultery or dueling because these crimes require at least two participants to occur.
33
What is the exception to Wharton's Rule
If there are **more people** than necessary to complete the crime, then a conspiracy charge can be brought. Ex. If there was a third party involved in adultery, all three could be charged with conspiracy AND the substantive offense.
34
Does the MPC use Wharton’s Rule?
No
35
Under **common law**, is **withdrawal** or **abandonment** a defense to conspiracy?
**No**, the conspiracy is **complete as soon as the parties make an agreement**. Even calling the police and stopping the conspiracy will not serve as a valid defense.
36
Under the MPC, is withdrawal or abandonment a defense to conspiracy?
Yes, if the D: 1.** Voluntarily** withdraws; and 2. **Actually thwarts **the conspiracy, usually by calling the police (merely trying to thwart the conspiracy is not enough)
37
Is **intoxication** a defense to conspiracy?
Yes, because it can negate the requisite intent
38
Distinguish **accomplice** vs. **principal**
**Accomplice**: Assists or encourages the commission of the crime, but does not do the act itself **Principal**: Commits the actus reus
39
When is an individual criminally **liable** as an **accomplice**?
If individual: 1. **Aids, abets, or encourages** principal to commit a crime; 2. With the **intent to assist** the principal; and 3. With the **intent for the principal to commit the crime**
40
When will the accomplice be liable for crimes by the principal that he **did not aid or abet**?
If: Crime is a “natural and probable” outgrowth of the original crime; and Crime is in furtherance of the original crime ⚠️ Note: MPC only allows accomplices to be charged with crimes they directly intended
41
Under common law, what are the defenses to accomplice liability?
1. **Withdrawal**, but if D: 1. Makes it clear to parties he is withdrawing and **renouncing prior aid**; 2. Does **everything possible** to counter prior aid; and 3. Does so **before** the chain of events is set in motion and unstoppable 2. Being a **member of the class the offense is intended to protect**. For example, the victim of an assault could not be an accomplice to assault. 3. Legal impossibility (very rare but possible. Factual impossibility is never a defense)
42
Under the MPC, is **withdrawal** a defense to **accomplice** liability?
Yes, but only if accomplice: 1. Renders his prior assistance to the perpetrator **completely ineffective**; or 2. Provides the **police with a timely warning** of the perpetrator’s plan; or otherwise makes a **substantial and proper effort** to prevent the perpetrator from committing the crime
43
Is the accomplice required to have **actually thwarted** the crime to invoke the withdrawal offense?
No, but the accomplice must have taken **affirmative actions** to undo his prior assistance
44
# Define Accessory after the Fact
One who aids or abets a principal after commission of the crime. There must be: A **completed** felony; **Actual knowledge** of the felony by the accessory; and **Affirmative steps** taken by the accessory to personally give **aid** to the felon to hinder the felon’s apprehension, conviction, or punishment
45
Does **failure to report** a felon make someone an accessory after the fact?
No, they must have taken **affirmative steps** to prevent felon’s arrest

Criminal Law (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions