Inchoate Offenses / Accomplice Liability

Question 1

What are inchoate offenses?

Answer 1

“Inchoate” offenses allow punishment of an actor even though he has not consummated the crime that is the object of his efforts

Question 2

What was the rule from People v. Gentry? (attempts)

Answer 2

A conviction of attempt murder requires a specific intent to kill. Attempt is a specific intent crime in the common law.

Question 3

What was the rule from Commonwealth v. Peaslee? (attempts)

Answer 3

To be found guilty of attempt, a defendant must have a present intent to commit the crime in the near future and must have the intent at a time and place where he is able to carry it out.

Question 4

What is the rule from People v. Rizzo? (attempts)

Answer 4

A defendant may not be convicted of an attempt unless the defendant intentionally commits an act tending to the commission of a crime, which is so near to accomplishment of the crime that in all reasonable probability the crime itself would have been committed but for timely interference.

Question 5

What is the actus reus analysis for attempt liability?

Answer 5

Use the legal tests for distinguishing mere preparation and criminal attempt:
- Physical Proximity Test
- Dangerous Proximity Test
- Indispensable Element Test
- Probable Desistance Test
- Res Ipsa Loquitur / Unequivocality Test
- MPC “Substantial step” test

Question 6

What is a criminal conspiracy?

Answer 6

An agreement (express or implied) between two or more individuals to commit a criminal act or series of criminal acts, or to accomplish a legal duty by unlawful means (Carter)

Question 7

What is the rule from Pinkerton? (conspiracy)

Answer 7

A defendant who conspires with another person is criminally liable for all substantive offenses committed by the coconspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy, even if the defendant did not know about the coconspirator’s acts and did not assist him in any manner.

Question 8

Does the MPC follow the Pinkerton doctrine?

Answer 8

No

Question 9

What is the overt act requirement of conspiracy? (MPC and majority of jurisdictions)

Answer 9

Any member of the conspiracy must have committed an overt act “in furtherance of the conspiracy” in order to be prosecuted
Ex: getting supplies; making a phone call

Question 10

What is the mens rea for conspiracy?

Answer 10

Dual intent: (1) intent to agree and (2) intent to commit the target offense (Swain)

Question 11

What was the rule from People v. Swain? (conspiracy)

Answer 11

A conviction for conspiracy to commit murder requires proof of the specific intent to kill.

Question 12

What is the rule from Commonwealth v. Azim? (conspiracy)

Answer 12

A conviction of conspiracy may be based solely upon circumstantial evidence. (Azim was the getaway driver for the criminals)

Question 13

What is the difference between bilateral and unilateral conspiracy?

Answer 13

Under the bilateral theory of conspiracy, the crime of conspiracy requires an actual agreement between two or more people to perform an illegal act.

The unilateral theory of conspiracy: it doesn’t matter what the other person does, if you seriously enter into the agreement then you committed conspiracy

(People v. Foster)

Question 14

Does the MPC follow the bilateral theory or unilateral theory of conspiracy?

Answer 14

Unilateral

Question 15

What is the rule from State v. Hoselton? (accomplice)

Answer 15

A defendant is not a principal in the second degree unless he participates in the crime while sharing the criminal intent of the principal in the first degree. (defendant stood on a barge while friends committed crimes)

Question 16

What is the natural-and-probable consequences doctrine?

Answer 16

An accessory is liable for any criminal act which in the ordinary course of things was the natural and probable consequence of the crime that he advised or commanded, although such consequence may not have been intended by him

Question 17

What is the mens rea for accomplice liability?

Answer 17

Dual intent requirement: common law
(1) Intent to do the acts that constitute “assistance” of the primary part AND
(2) Intent that such assistance result in commission of the offense charged

MPC § 2.06(3)(a)

Question 18

What was the rule from State v. Linscott? (accomplice)

Answer 18

The natural-and-probable-consequence doctrine does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

Question 19

Does the MPC follow the natural and probable consequences doctrine?

Answer 19

No, a person must have the requisite culpability specific to the result crime to be held liable as an accomplice

Question 20

What is the actus reus of accomplice liability?

Answer 20

The secondary party solicited the offense, furnished an instrumentality used in in the commission of the crime, or provided other significant active aid

Question 21

What is the rule from State v. VT? (accomplice)

Answer 21

Evidence of mere presence is insufficient to demonstrate complicity in a crime.

Question 22

What is the rule from State v. Helmenstein? (Accomplice)

Answer 22

A criminal defendant may not be convicted based on the testimony of an accomplice if there is no other corroborating evidence connecting the defendant to the commission of the offense. (I want bananas was an accomplice)

Question 23

What is the rule from People v. Genoa? (accomplice)

Answer 23

A defendant who intends to aid and abet a crime that subsequently never takes place cannot be convicted as an accomplice to that crime.

Question 24

What is the MPC approach to accomplice liability when the underlying crime does not occur?

Answer 24

If you attempt to aid in a crime that doesn’t happen, but you would have been considered an accomplice under § 2.06 if the crime had occurred, you can be liable

Question 25

What is the MPC approach to accomplice liability generally?

Answer 25

○ A person is an accomplice when:
(a) With the purpose [mens rea] of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he
(i) Solicits another person to commit it; or [actus reus]
(ii) Aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; or [actus reus]
(iii) Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make proper effort to so to do; or [actus reus]
(b) His conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his complicity

Question 26

What is the common law approach to accomplice liability?

Answer 26

Requires the person provide actual assistance with the crime, but no agreement is required; unlike conspiratorial liability, which is based on an agreement to commit crime, but does not require a party to the conspiracy to have actually assisted with the crime’s commission to be held liable for it (State v. Ward)