Inchoate Crimes & Parties to a Crime

Question 1

What is the mens rea for attempt?

Answer 1

Specific intent to commit the underlying crime

Question 2

What is the actus reus for attempt?

Answer 2

Overt act in furtherance of intent to commit underlying crime

Question 3

Charged with attempt for crimes with mens rea of recklessness or negligence?

Answer 3

No, attempt requires specific intent to commit the underlying crime

Question 4

What are the 3 tests to determine overt act for attempt?

Answer 4

Dangerous Proximity Test, Equivocality Test, Substantial Step (MPC)

Question 5

What is the dangerous proximity test?

Answer 5

Looks at whether D came within dangerous proximity to completing the crime

Question 6

What is the equivocality test?

Answer 6

Asks: is D’s conduct an unequivocal manifestation of their intent to complete the target offense?

Question 7

Under the MPC, what is the substantial step test?

Answer 7

An act is an overt act if it is a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in D’s commission of the crime and is strongly corroborative of D’s criminal intent

Question 8

Does mere preparation qualify as a substantial step?

Answer 8

No, it must go beyond mere preparation

Question 9

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

Answer 9

Lying in wait, searching for or following the contemplated victim; enticing the victim; reconnoitering the place; unlawful entry; possession or collection of materials; soliciting an innocent agent

Question 10

What is the impossibility defense to attempt?

Answer 10

Argues that external circumstances thwarted D’s ability to complete the offense

Question 11

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

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

What is legal impossibility and is it a valid defense?

Answer 12

Arises when D thinks they are committing a crime, but their actions are actually lawful. It is a valid defense.

Question 13

Is renunciation a valid defense to attempt?

Answer 13

Yes, if D completely and voluntarily withdraws before completion of the crime

Question 14

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

Answer 14

No, withdrawing out of fear of being caught is not considered voluntary

Question 15

What are the elements of common law solicitation?

Answer 15

Enticing, advising, requesting, or persuading another person to commit a crime with the intent the other person commits the crime

Question 16

When is solicitation complete?

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Is withdrawal a defense to solicitation?

Answer 17

Allowed by some courts and the MPC if renunciation was voluntary and D prevents commission of the crime

Question 18

Is factual impossibility a valid defense to solicitation?

Answer 18

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

Question 19

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

Answer 19

No because solicitation is complete as soon as D encourages

Question 20

Distinguish between solicitation and attempt.

Answer 20

Solicitation: mere encouragement or enticement. Attempt: substantial steps taken to prepare for crime

Question 21

What are the elements of conspiracy?

Answer 21

Intentional agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means; an overt act in furtherance of the unlawful act

Question 22

Explain the overt act requirement for conspiracy under the MPC.

Answer 22

Act must be in furtherance of the conspiracy. Mere preparation is not sufficient.

Question 23

Is a ‘meeting of the minds’ required for conspiracy?

Answer 23

No, only that the parties agree to pursue a common objective

Question 24

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

Answer 24

No

Question 25

For the purposes of conspiracy, is it sufficient for D to know that his actions might further a criminal action?

Answer 25

No, the D must intend for his actions to further criminal conduct

Question 26

Are D’s liable for the crimes committed by their co-conspirators?

Answer 26

Under the Pinkerton Doctrine, co-conspirators are liable for crimes that are foreseeable and committed in furtherance of the conspiracy

Question 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?

Answer 27

Common law: Yes, since those crimes are reasonably foreseeable. MPC/Modern Courts: Less likely to hold co-conspirators liable without evidence of further involvement

Question 28

Define 'chain' conspiracies.

Answer 28

Conspiracies with a series of events that are dependent on each other, each of which furthers the object of the conspiracy

Question 29

Define 'hub and spoke' conspiracies.

Answer 29

When one person (the ring leader or hub) enters into agreements with individuals (individual spokes)

Question 30

When is a 'hub and spoke' conspiracy considered one large conspiracy instead of several smaller ones?

Answer 30

Each participant is aware that other participants exist and understand that they exist in a 'community of interest'

Question 31

Define 'unilateral' conspiracy.

Answer 31

When a single party is charged with conspiracy

Question 32

Define Wharton’s Rule.

Answer 32

If the target offense requires two or more people, then a conspiracy charge cannot be brought

Question 33

What is the exception to Wharton’s Rule?

Answer 33

If there are more people than necessary to complete the crime, then a conspiracy charge can be brought

Question 34

Does the MPC use Wharton’s Rule?

Answer 34

No

Question 35

Under common law, is withdrawal or abandonment a defense to conspiracy?

Answer 35

No, the conspiracy is complete as soon as the parties make an agreement

Question 36

Under the MPC, is withdrawal or abandonment a defense to conspiracy?

Answer 36

Yes, if the D voluntarily withdraws and actually thwarts the conspiracy

Question 37

Is intoxication a defense to conspiracy?

Answer 37

Yes, because it can negate the requisite intent

Question 38

Distinguish accomplice vs. principal.

Answer 38

Accomplice: Assists or encourages the commission of the crime. Principal: Commits the actus reus

Question 39

When is an individual criminally liable as an accomplice?

Answer 39

If individual aids, abets, or encourages principal to commit a crime with the intent to assist the principal and with the intent for the principal to commit the crime

Question 40

When will the accomplice be liable for crimes by the principal that he did not aid or abet?

Answer 40

If the crime is a 'natural and probable' outgrowth of the original crime and is in furtherance of the original crime

Question 41

Under common law, what are the defenses to accomplice liability?

Answer 41

Withdrawal, member of the class the offense is intended to protect, legal impossibility

Question 42

Under the MPC, is withdrawal a defense to accomplice liability?

Answer 42

Yes, if accomplice renders his prior assistance completely ineffective, provides the police with a timely warning, or makes a substantial and proper effort to prevent the perpetrator from committing the crime

Question 43

Is the accomplice required to have actually thwarted the crime to invoke the withdrawal defense?

Answer 43

No, but the accomplice must have taken affirmative actions to undo his prior assistance

Question 44

Define accessory after the fact.

Answer 44

One who aids or abets a principal after commission of the crime

Question 45

Does failure to report a felon make someone an accessory after the fact?

Answer 45

No, they must have taken affirmative steps to prevent felon’s arrest