Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

July Exam - Criminal Law > Inchoate Offenses > Flashcards

Inchoate Offenses Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Kinds of Inchoate Offenses

A
  • conspiracy
  • attempt
  • solicitation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Conspiracy - Elements

A

Requires:
1) an agreement between two or more persons
2) an intent to enter into the agreement AND
3) an intent by at least two persons to achieve the objective of the agreement

  • object of the conspiracy must be criminal or achievement of the lawful object by criminal means
  • unlike common law, majority of states require an overt act, but an act of mere preparation will suffice
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Conspiracy - Agreement Requirement

A
  • must agree to accomplish same objective by mutual action
  • agreement need not be express -> can be inferred from joint activity
  • common law required two or more “guilty minds”, vs. modern trend + MPC require only one party to have genuine criminal intent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Conspiracy - Wharton Rule

A
  • under this rule, where two or more people are necessary for commission of the substantive offense (ex: adultery, dueling), there’s no crime of conspiracy unless more parties participate in the agreement than are necessary for the crime
  • does not apply though to agreements with “necessary parties not provided for” by the substantive offense (ex: sale of narcotics - statute imposes liability on seller only, but buyer and seller could technically be charged with conspiracy to sell narcotics)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Conspiracy - Agreement with Person in “Protected Class”

A
  • if members of conspiracy agree to commit crime designed to protect persons within a given class, persons w/in that class cannot be guilty of the crime itself or of conspiracy to commit that crime
  • likewise, the nonprotected person cannot be guilty of conspiracy if the agreement was only with the protected person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Effect of Acquittal of Some Conspirators

A
  • under traditional rule, acquittal of all persons w/ whom def is alleged to have conspired precludes conviction of remaining def
  • in some jurs following traditional rule, conviction for conspiracy against one def is allowed to stand when the allege co-conspirator is acquitted in a separate trial
  • book noted to pay attention to distinction between charged + convicted vs never tried
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Conspiracy - Mental State

A
  • conspiracy = specific intent crime
  • parties must have 1) intent to agree AND 2) intent to achieve objective of the conspiracy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Conspiracy - Overt Act

A
  • at common law, conspiracy complete when agreement with requisite intent was reached
  • majority rule, followed by most states, is that an act in furtherance of the conspiracy must be performed
  • if you’re operating under majority rule that requires an agreement plus an overt act, any little act can be an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, even an act of mere preparation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Termination of Conspiracy

A
  • termination point important b/c acts + statements of co-conspirators are admissible against a conspirator only if done or made in furtherance of the conspiracy
  • usually terminates upon completion of the wrongful objective
  • acts of concealment NOT part of the conspiracy unless agreed on in advance
  • gov’s defeat of conspiracy objective does not automatically terminate the conspiracy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Liability for Co-Conspirators’ Crimes

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

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

Conspiracy - Defenses

A
  • factual impossibility is NOT a defense to conspiracy
  • withdrawal is generally NOT a defense to conspiracy (conspiracy is technically complete as soon as the agreement is made + act in furtherance is performed)
    -> BUT may be a defense to crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, including substantive target crime,
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Conspiracy - When Withdrawal Effective

A
  • to withdraw, conspirator must perform an affirmative act that notifies all members of the conspiracy of their withdrawal
  • notice must be given in time for members to abandon plans
  • if conspirator has also provided assistance as an accomplice, conspirator must try to neutralize the assistance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Conspiracy - Merger

A
  • NO merger for conspiracy - conspiracy + completed crime are distinct offenses, + def may be convicted of + punished for both
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Solicitation - Elements

A

Consists of:
- asking, inciting, counseling, advising, urging, or commanding another to commit a crime WITH
- the intent that the person solicited commit the crime

  • NOT necessary that the person solicited agree to commit the crime
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Solicitation - Defenses

A
  • NOT a defense that the person solicited isn’t convicted, nor that offense solicited couldn’t have been successful (factual impossibility)
  • in most jurisdictions, also NOT a defense that solicitor renounces or withdraws the solicitation
    -> MPC though recognizes renunciation as a defense if def prevents commission of the crime
  • it IS a defense that solicitor couldn’t have been found guilty of completed crime b/c of legislative intent to exempt them
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Solicitation - Merger

A
  • if the person solicited commits the crime, both that person AND the solicitor can be held liable for that crime
  • if the person commits acts sufficient to be liable for attempt, both parties can be liable for attempt
  • if person solicited agrees to commit crime but doesn’t commit acts sufficient for attempt, both parties can be held liable for conspiracy
  • BUT under doctrine of merger, solicitor cannot be punished for both the solicitation and these other offenses
17
Q

Attempt - Elements

A
  • Attempt = an act, done w/ intent to commit a crime, that falls short of completing the crime

Requires:
1) specific intent PLUS
2) overt act in furtherance of the crime

18
Q

Attempt - Intent

A
  • to be guilty of attempt def must intend to perform an act + obtain a result that, if achieved, would constitute a crime
  • regardless of intent necessary for completed offense, attempt always requires a specific intent (i.e. intent to commit the crime)
    -> b/c of this, can’t have attempt for crimes w/ negligence or recklessness as the requisite mental state
19
Q

Attempt - Overt Act

A
  • def must commit an act beyond mere preparation for the offense
  • traditionally: proximity test
  • today, most state codes + MPC: substantial step test
  • much more substantial than the act required for conspiracy (mere preparation IS sufficient for conspiracy)
20
Q

Attempt - Proximity Test

A
  • traditional framework
  • requires that the act be “dangerously close” to successful completion of crime
  • ex: pointing loaded gun at intended victim + pulling the trigger, only to have gun not fire or bullet miss
21
Q

Attempt - Substantial Step Test

A
  • most state crim codes and MPC
  • require that the act or omission constitute a “substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime” that strongly corroborates actor’s criminal purpose
22
Q

Attempt - Defenses

A
  • abandonment (sometimes)
  • legal impossibility
  • NOT factual impossibility
23
Q

Attempt - Abandonment

A
  • NOT a defense at common law, though possible under MPC
  • if def had the intent + committed an overt act, def is guilty of attempt despite fact that they changed their mind + abandoned the plan before intended crime completed
  • MPC (followed in a number of jurs) provides that a fully voluntary and complete abandonment is a defense
24
Q

Legal Impossibility

A
  • if def, having completed all acts they intended, would’ve committed no crime, can’t be guilty of attempt to do the same if they fail to complete all intended acts
  • IS a defense, but a rare one
25
Q

Factual Impossibility

A
  • situation when substantive crime is incapable of completion due to some physical or factual condition, unknown to defendant
  • NOT a defense
26
Q

Prosecution for Attempt

A
  • def charged with completed crime may be found guilty of the completed crime OR an attempt
  • vs. def charged only w/ attempt may not be convicted of the completed crime
27
Q

Mental States for Inchoate Crimes - Summary

A
  • solicitation: specific intent that person solicited commit the crime
  • conspiracy: specific intent to 1) enter into agreement and 2) achieve the objective
  • attempt: specific intent to commit the particular crime attempted

July Exam - Criminal Law (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions