inchoate offenses

Question 1

conspiracy

Answer 1

elements:
* agreement between 2 or more persons
* intent to enter into agreement
* intent to achieve objective of conspiracy aka unlawful objective (specific intent)
* overt act (required by maj of states, not CL)

Question 2

unilateral v. bilateral approach

Answer 2

uniltateral (modern): only 1 party must have criminal intent e.g. conspirator + undercover cop

bilateral (traditional/CL): at least 2 parties must have criminal intent
* if one person in a two party agreement is only feigning agreement, the other party cannot be convicted of conspiracy

Question 3

overt act in conspiracy

Answer 3

act in furtherance of the conspiracy

mere preperation will suffice

Question 4

effect of aquittal of some conspirators

Answer 4

under trad view, acquittal of all persons with whom a D is alleged to have conspired precludes conviction of the remaining D

BUT if only the D is charged and tried (e.g. bc others are still at large) the D can be convicted
* charged and tried and all others have been acquitted –> the D cannot be convicted bc nobody with whom the D could conspire

Question 5

liability for co-conspirator’s crimes

Answer 5

A conspirator may be held liable for crimes committed by other conspirators if the crimes (1) were committed **in furtherance **of the objectives of the conspiracy and (2) were foreseeable

Question 6

defenses to conspiracy

Answer 6

NOT factual impossibility

NOT withdrawal (bc conspiracy completed as soon as the agreement is made and act in furtherance is performed)

BUT withdrawal may be a defense to the** crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy**
requirements:
* conspirator must perform an affirmative act that notifies all members of the conspiracy of their withdrawal (notice to abandon their plans)
* If the conspirator has also provided assistance as an accomplice, they must try to neutralize the assistance

Question 7

merger for conspiracy?

Answer 7

no merger: conspiracy and completed crime are distinct offenses
–> D may be convicted of and punished for both

Question 8

solicitation

Answer 8

Asking, inciting, counseling, advising, urging, or commanding another person to commit a crime, with intent that the person commit it

if they agree to do it, then merges into crime of conspiracy

Question 9

attempt

Answer 9

an act, done with intent to commit a crime, that falls short of completing the crime

requires (1) intent to perform an act and obtain a result that, if achieved, would constitute a crime (specific intent) + (2) an overt act in furtherance of the crime
* no transferred intent for attempt crimes

Question 10

attempt Overt Act

Answer 10

OA = act beyond mere preparation

• Some states use traditional/proximity test: dangerously close to successful completion of crime
• Most state now use modern/majority test: substantial step in course of conduct

Question 11

defenes to attempt

Answer 11

abandonment:
* not a defense at common law
* defense under MPC if fully voluntary and complete

legal impossibility:
* defense
* if D, having completed all acts that they had intended, would have committed no crime, they cannot be guilty of an attempt to do the same if they fail to complete all intended acts

factual impossibility
* not a defense
* describes the situation when the substantive crime is incapable of completion due to some physical or factual condition, unknown to the defendant

Question 12

merger for attempt?

Answer 12

yes

D convicted of attempt cannot be found guilty of completed crime and vice versa