Kaplan Pgs 347-353 Inchoate and Parties to Crime Flashcards
What is a solicitor guilty of outside of solicitation?
He is an accessory before the fact and so he will be guilty of any solicited crime
The solicitation merge with a targeted felony?
Yes
If a solicitor could not be convicted of the underlying crime, can he be guilty of solicitation still?
No
How did defences work for solicitation?
– Common law: no defences if the elements of solicitation are met
– modernly: specific intent defences like voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake of fact works
If it would be impossible for a solicitee to carry out the crime, is that a defence for the solicitor?
No, because the focus is on what the solicitor believes the circumstances are, not what they actually are
Does attempt to merge into the target crime?
Yes
Why might a attempt conviction require more proof that he completed a fence?
Because attempt is always specific intent, so it must be proven that the defendant specifically intended to bring about the criminal results. Where is the completed offence might not be a specific intent offence
If a defendant intended to kill a victim by tying him up and pushing him into a pool, what would he have to do before he could be guilty of attempt under common law and modern law?
Dash common-law: he would’ve had to tie him up and push him into the pool mat
– modern Lee: he would’ve just had to tie him up close to the pool
How is abandonment dealt with when it comes to attempt?
At common law: no defense
– modernly and MPC: this is a defence if the defendant voluntarily and completely abandoned the attempt through a true change of heart
What is the difference between legal and factual impossibility?
Legal is a defence and factual is not
Is actual agreement required for a conspiracy?
Yes. Find agreement like when an undercover police officer
Which of the inchoate crimes emerge?
Both solicitation and attempt to merge into the completed crime, but conspiracy does not
What does the Pinkerton rule say?
Each conspirator is liable for all crimes of all the other co-conspirators win:
– the crime is a foreseeable outgrowth of the conspiracy, and
– it is committed in furtherance of the goal of the conspiracy
Majority rule
In the two models of conspiracies that include a chain relationship and a hub and spoke relationship, which one is a single conspiracy and which is a multiple conspiracy?
Chain: several crimes are committed under one large scheme and each member knows generally of the other parties participation. This is one single conspiracy
– hub and spoke: one common member enters into agreements to commit a series of independent crimes of different people. This is multiple conspiracies
What is the Wharton rule?
For crimes were two or more people are necessary to commit the crime, there is no conspiracy unless the agreement involves an additional person that is not essential to the definition of that crime
What are the crimes that the Wharton rule encompasses?
– Bigamy – incest – gambling – giving and receiving bribes – adultery – dueling
Can impossibility be a defence to conspiracy?
No
Is withdrawal a defence to conspiracy?
- common law: No because the conspiracy is complete as soon as the parties agree to commit the crime. But withdrawal may cut off further liability for other crimes that are committed in the course of the conspiracy by other conspirators as long as the conspirator communicates his withdrawal to each of the co-conspirators
- NBC: this can be valid if the renouncing party gives timely notice to all members the conspiracy and performs an affirmative act to thwart the success of the conspiracy
What is the difference between the common law approach and the modern approach to accomplice liability?
At common law: has accessories before and after the fact and principles in the first and second-degree
– modern: just has accomplices to crime and accessories after the fact. Accomplices are fully liable
Do you have to do to be an accomplice?
Give assistance or encouragement, or fail to act when you have a legal duty to act
– purposefully intend to effectuate commission of the crime
Is slight assistance or encouragement enough for accomplice liability?
Yes, as long as you actually assist or encourage
Ayi if someone give someone else a thumbs up sign before that person beats up a third-party. Even if that other person would’ve beat up the third-party anyway, as long as the thumbs up act was seen by the other person and gave him a slight encouragement, that is enough
If someone is working with a false accomplice, such as a police officer, is that individual liable for the acts of the false accomplice?
No
How does withdrawal or abandonment work for accomplice liability?
This is fine as long as the accomplice severs any assistance and encouragement, communicated with drawl to the accomplices, and makes efforts to neutralize his prior assistance
If you agreed to lend your car to someone so they can rob a bank, but then you change your mind, how do you avoid accomplice liability?
I have to tell that person that you changed your mind and get your car keys back from them. But you do not need to call the police
What are the two different views on convicting the principle of and accomplice situation?
– Common law: you must convict the principal in order to convict and accessory
– majority view: you don’t have to convict the principal in order to convict and assessor he
