Kaplan Pgs 347-353 Inchoate and Parties to Crime

Question 1

What is a solicitor guilty of outside of solicitation?

Answer 1

He is an accessory before the fact and so he will be guilty of any solicited crime

Question 2

The solicitation merge with a targeted felony?

Answer 2

Yes

Question 3

If a solicitor could not be convicted of the underlying crime, can he be guilty of solicitation still?

Answer 3

No

Question 4

How did defences work for solicitation?

Answer 4

– Common law: no defences if the elements of solicitation are met
– modernly: specific intent defences like voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake of fact works

Question 5

If it would be impossible for a solicitee to carry out the crime, is that a defence for the solicitor?

Answer 5

No, because the focus is on what the solicitor believes the circumstances are, not what they actually are

Question 6

Does attempt to merge into the target crime?

Answer 6

Yes

Question 7

Why might a attempt conviction require more proof that he completed a fence?

Answer 7

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

Question 8

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?

Answer 8

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

Question 9

How is abandonment dealt with when it comes to attempt?

Answer 9

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

Question 10

What is the difference between legal and factual impossibility?

Answer 10

Legal is a defence and factual is not

Question 11

Is actual agreement required for a conspiracy?

Answer 11

Yes. Find agreement like when an undercover police officer

Question 12

Which of the inchoate crimes emerge?

Answer 12

Both solicitation and attempt to merge into the completed crime, but conspiracy does not

Question 13

What does the Pinkerton rule say?

Answer 13

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

Question 14

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?

Answer 14

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

Question 15

What is the Wharton rule?

Answer 15

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

Question 16

What are the crimes that the Wharton rule encompasses?

Answer 16

– Bigamy
– incest
– gambling
– giving and receiving bribes
– adultery
– dueling

Question 17

Can impossibility be a defence to conspiracy?

Answer 17

No

Question 18

Is withdrawal a defence to conspiracy?

Answer 18

• 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

Question 19

What is the difference between the common law approach and the modern approach to accomplice liability?

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Do you have to do to be an accomplice?

Answer 20

Give assistance or encouragement, or fail to act when you have a legal duty to act
– purposefully intend to effectuate commission of the crime

Question 21

Is slight assistance or encouragement enough for accomplice liability?

Answer 21

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

Question 22

If someone is working with a false accomplice, such as a police officer, is that individual liable for the acts of the false accomplice?

Answer 22

No

Question 23

How does withdrawal or abandonment work for accomplice liability?

Answer 23

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

Question 24

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?

Answer 24

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

Question 25

What are the two different views on convicting the principle of and accomplice situation?

Answer 25

– 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