Inchoate Offenses

Question 1

inchoate offenses

Answer 1

1. solicitation
2. conspiracy
3. attempt

Question 2

solicitation

Answer 2

inciting, urging, or otherwise asking another to commit a crime w/ the intent they commit the crime
- no affirmative response from solicited party is required

Question 3

solicitation merges w/ target offense

Answer 3

solicitation is complete when D asks solicitee to commit felony
- if solicitee agrees, it gives rise to conspiracy and solicitation merges w/ conspiracy (ie, the only crime remaining is conspiracy)

NOTE: does NOT matter if solicited party is convicted or if solicited crime was impossible to commit

Question 4

solicitation defenses

Answer 4

very few defenses apply to solicitation
- MPC allows renunciation as defense but CL does NOT

NOT defenses
- refusal by solicitee (needs to renunciation in MPC)
- impossibility
- withdrawal
- renunciation (CL)

most jurisdictions follow common law approach

Question 5

conspiracy

Answer 5

an agreement between 2+ people to commit crime or unlawful objective
- specific intent crime

NO merger w/ crime of conspiracy

Question 6

conspiracy requirements

Answer 6

1. an agreement between two or more people: (ie, “meeting of the minds”); express agreement NOT required; and parties do NOT need to know of each other’s existence
2. intent to enter into agreement
3. intent to commit target crime or pursue the unlawful objective: must intend unlawful objective
4. an overt act in furtherance of target crime: even mere preparation; NOT a requirement in CL BUT majority NOT CL

Question 7

unilateral v. bilateral conspiracy

Answer 7

CL Bilateral: 2+ more people must have criminal intent
- NO intent if acquitted…must be guilty

MPC Unilateral: only one party must have criminal intent
- majority approach

ET: unless otherwise instructed, apply CL

eg, under MPC, D may be convicted of conpsiracy w/ another party who was an undercover police officer (but NOT CL)

Question 8

termination of conspiracy

Answer 8

conspiracy ends upon completion of target crime

Question 9

defenses to conspiracy

Answer 9

• impossibility NOT defense to conspiracy
• withdrawal is generally NOT a defense to conspiracy but may be a defense to liability for co-conspirator’s subsequent crimes
• Withdrawal only effective when one performs affirmative act that notifies all co-conspirators of withdrawal in time for them to abandon plan

Question 10

co-conspirator liability

Answer 10

each conspirator is liable for co-conspirator’s crimes that are:
1. foreseeable, and
2. committed in furtherance of conspiracy

NOTE: statements made by co-conspirator admittable if in furtherance of crime

Question 11

withdrawal and co-conspirator liability

Answer 11

• CL: one CANNOT withdraw from conspiracy itself
• MPC: allows withdrawal if withdrawing party thwarts the conspiracy (eg, by stopping it or notifying police)

Effective only:
1. For subsequent crimes
2. affirmative act required
3. must be timely

Question 12

subsequent crimes

Answer 12

one can withdraw from co-conspirator’s subsequent crimes, including the target offense of the conspiracy

Question 13

affirmative act required

Answer 13

withdrawal is effective when the withdrawing party makes an affirmative act that notifies all of his co-conspirators he is withdrawing
- the withdrawing party must attempt to neutralize the effect of any assistance he provided to the OG conspiracy

Question 14

must be timely

Answer 14

withdrawal must give enough time for co-conspirators to abandon plans for the target offense

Question 15

attempt

Answer 15

an act done w/ specific intent to commit crime and constitutes an overt or substantial step towards committing the crime but falls short of completing the crime
- ie, an incomplete act that would be a crime if completed
- MUST be attached to another crime (eg, attempted murder)

NOTE: one crime is completed, merges into completed crime

Question 16

overt act

Answer 16

D must commit an act beyond mere preparation
* Trad/CL: attempt requires an act that is dangerously close to success
* Modern/MPC: D must take a substantial step towards committing the target crime

Question 17

intent

Answer 17

D must specifically intend to commit a particular crime

aka specific intent to commit the certain crime

Question 18

attempt defenses

Answer 18

1. Legal impossibility: thought it was a crime but not actually
2. MPC: abandonment ONLY IF fully voluntary and completed
   - NOT going back wanting to complete crime tomorrow

Question 19

NOT attempt defenses

Answer 19

1. Factual impossibility: trying to rob but V has no money
2. Modern/CL: abandonment
   - liability for attempt arises once D commits an overt act concurrently w/ specific intent to commit crime (ie, D is laible for attempt before he can abandon the crime)