Inchoate Offenses & Accomplice Liability Flashcards
inchoate offenses (definition; key points; list)
- Definition: Acts committed prior to and in preparation of a more serious offense. Inchoate offenses are complete offenses, even though the act to be done may not yet have been completed.
- All inchoate offenses are SPECIFIC INTENT crimes.
• List:
– A. Attempt
– B. Solicitation
– C. Conspiracy
attempt
definition; elements; examples
- Definition: An act or acts done with the intention of committing a crime, but which fall short of completing the crime.
- Elements:
> > >
- SPECIFIC INTENT to commit a crime (even if the completed crime is not a specific intent crime)
> > >
- under the M.P.C. (and majority) view, the accused must take a SUBSTANTIAL STEP toward completing the crime (i.e., the accused must go beyond the stage of mere preparation to some firm, clear, and undeniable action)
» under the COMMON LAW, the accused must come dangerously close to successful completion of the crime (unlike the M.P.C., the common law requires that the defendant come very close to completing the crime)
– Example: A, with the intent to kill, places a bomb under B’s car set to explode when B starts her car. Two hours later, A decides to remove the bomb, concerned that the police will trace it to him. Is A guilty of attempted murder?
»> Yes. A had the specific intent to kill and took a substantial step toward completing the crime (and came dangerously close to success).
– Example: Same facts as previous example, except that A merely intended to scare B (but the bomb would have killed B if it had exploded). Is A guilty of attempted murder?
»> No, because A did not have the specific intent to kill B.
attempt and merger
– Merger: Attempt merges with the completed offense; thus, a defendant may not be convicted of both attempt and the completed crime assuming there is only one victim.
3 defenses to attempt (and key note)
factual impossibility of success
legal impossibility
abandonment
**but they are all caveated and won’t always work!
attempt and factual impossibility of success
what is the question we ask?
– Factual Impossibility of Success: Ask the following question: If the facts are as the accused believed them to be, would the accused be guilty of a crime?
»> If so, factual impossibility IS NOT a defense.
»> If NOT, factual impossibility IS a defense b/c it negate specific intent
• Example: B stole some jewels from X and intends to sell them to A. A has a standing agreement with B to buy all of the jewels B is able to steal. Prior to arriving at A’s house, B is arrested by the police. B tells the police that he intended to sell the jewels to A. Acting as a police informant (and with the permission of X), B offers to sell the jewels to A, which A agrees to buy. A is immediately arrested. Is A guilty of attempted receipt of stolen property?
»> Yes, because A thought the jewels were stolen when he purchased them.
attempt and legal impossibility of success
– Legal Impossibility: This is a defense, but is quite rare. It applies only in those situations where the completed act is not illegal (despite the fact that the accused thought it was illegal).
• Example: D believes that it is illegal to scalp tickets, but he is willing to take the risk. D is apprehended outside the sports stadium selling basketball tickets. An officer charges him with attempted scalping of tickets. In researching the law, D’s lawyer discovers that the state repealed its scalping law ten years ago. Is D guilty of attempted scalping of tickets?
> > > No, despite D’s belief that he is breaking the law, no matter what he does he cannot violate a law that does not exist
distinguishing between factual and legal impossibility
– Factual impossibility and legal impossibility often look alike (e.g., a defendant charged with murder for shooting a person he thought was alive but was already dead). If unclear, most courts (and the M.P.C) assume the defendant is asserting factual impossibility and thus is guilty of the crime.
attempt and abandonment
– Abandonment: This is not a defense at common law
»> but it is a defense under the M.P.C. if the abandonment/renunciation is COMPLETE AND TRULY VOLUNTARY).
• Example: A, with the intent to kill, places a bomb under B’s car set to explode when B starts her car. Two hours later, A decides to remove the bomb, concerned that the police will trace it to him. Is A guilty of attempted murder?
»> Yes. A had the specific intent to kill and took a substantial step toward completing the crime (and came dangerously close to success). Once these two elements take place, A cannot avoid liability by abandoning his plan.
• Would A have a defense under the M.P.C.?
»> No, because A’s renunciation was not truly “voluntary.” - i.e. fear that you will get caught is not a voluntary exhibit of renunciation and remorse
solicitation
definition; 4 improper defenses; merger
• Definition: Urging, inciting, or asking another person to commit a crime (e.g., hiring a hit-man) with the specific intent that the crime be committed. The offense of solicitation is complete upon the asking or inciting.
• It is not a defense that:
– the other person was incapable of committing the crime (e.g., was a police officer)
– the person asked to commit the crime is acquitted of the crime
– the person asked to commit the crime fails to complete it
– that the solicitor renounces or withdraws the solicitation (even if before the solicited crime is committed)
»> The M.P.C. recognizes renunciation as a defense ONLY IF the soliciting party prevents commission of the crime
- If the crime is committed, the solicitor is guilty of the crime as an accomplice (to the completed crime and solicitation will have merged)
- Merger: Solicitation merges with conspiracy, attempt, and the completed offense.
- generally only found when you can’t prove all elements of conspiracy
conspiracy
definition; elements
- Definition: An agreement between two or more people to commit a crime
- Elements:
(1) agreement (express or implied) between two or more people
(2) specific intent to enter into an agreement (i.e., words or actions indicating that the defendant intended to join the conspiracy)
(3) specific intent to achieve the objective of the agreement (i.e., successful completion of at least one crime)
> > > this requires TWO guilty minds (i.e., the bilateral approach to conspiracy)—the second person cannot be a police officer or someone working with the police (COMMON LAW APPROACH)
> > > The M.P.C. requires only ONE guilty mind for conspiracy (the unilateral approach to conspiracy)
> > > **must be an UNLAWFUL objective (a conspiracy to break into your own house is not a criminal conspiracy)
(4) an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (any act by any conspirator—even one of mere preparation—is sufficient)
> > > Examples of Overt Acts: stealing a getaway car; buying a gun; conducting a dry-run of the crime; arranging an additional meeting of the conspirators; checking a weather report for the day of the crime – ***just talking about doing the crime is insufficient
> > > this is a majority rule which was not required under the common law
conspiracy
when it ends; merger; criminal liability
- The conspiracy ends when the underlying offense is completed, unless the parties also explicitly planned to conceal the crime; acts of concealment, by themselves, are not sufficient to continue the conspiracy
- Merger: Conspiracy does NOT merge with attempt or the completed crime; thus, a person may be convicted of both conspiracy to commit murder and murder (or attempted murder)
- Criminal liability: All members of the conspiracy are liable for all foreseeable crimes committed in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy (but are not liable for crimes committed before they joined the conspiracy)
conspiracy
defenses of impossibility of the crime and ignorance of the law
• Impossibility of the crime is no defense
– Example: A and B conspire to kill C. A few minutes later, B buys a gun to commit the act. Unbeknownst to A and B, C died of natural causes two hours before A and B conspired to kill him. Are A and B guilty of conspiracy?
»> Yes, impossibility is no defense.
• Ignorance of the law is no defense
– Example: A and B agree to go on a hunting trip on October 1. Both of them believe the hunting season begins on October 1; it actually begins on October 15. A rents a motor home for the trip. A and B are arrested while driving to the hunting area. Hunting out-of-season is a strict liability crime. If they are charged with conspiracy to hunt out-of-season, should they be convicted?
»> Yes. Under the majority view, the parties to a conspiracy need not be aware that their plan is an illegal one. Thus, A and B’s ignorance of the start date of the hunting season is not a defense to conspiracy.
conspiracy and withdrawal
• At common law, withdrawal from the conspiracy is never a defense to the conspiracy itself (the crime is complete as soon as an agreement is made and an overt act is committed). A person may, however, withdraw from future crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy:
– if the person affirmatively notifies all members of conspiracy with such time that everyone has an opportunity to abandon his or her plans AND
– if the withdrawing conspirator has provided material assistance, he or she must neutralize the assistance or notify the police
(The M.P.C. recognizes complete and voluntary withdrawal AS A DEFENSE TO THE CONSPIRACY ITSELF, only if defendant thwarts the success of the conspiracy (e.g., informs the police).)
conspiracy ancillary rules
protected classes; acquittal; wharton rule
- If a statute is designed to protect a particular class (e.g., statutory rape laws are designed to protect underage victims and child labor laws are designed to protect children), the protected person may not be convicted of solicitation, conspiracy, or accomplice liability for the completed offense even if the protected person solicits or aids in the crime and/or agrees to commit the crime
- If all other members of the conspiracy are acquitted, the accused may not be convicted because he had no one with whom to conspire. (acquitted, not just dropped charges!)
• Wharton Rule: If the crime, by its very nature, requires two persons (e.g., adultery, bribery, incest, dueling, and bigamy), there is no additional liability for conspiracy, unless a third person agrees to participate.
»> Likewise, a simple agreement to buy drugs is generally insufficient to establish a conspiracy between the seller and buyer.
three parties to a crime
principal
accomplice
accessory after the fact
