Inchoate Crimes Flashcards
(27 cards)
What is an “inchoate offense”?
Occurs when a person’s criminal activity stops short of completion
*all inchoate offenses are SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES
What are the two elements of solicitation?
- actus reus: or counseling, initing, or inducing someone to commit an offense; AND
- mens rea: or acting w/ the specific purpose or intent to cause that person to commit the crime
**solicitation merges w/ the completed offense
What is the 2-part legal standard for conspiracy under common law?
Conspiracy at common law requires:
- an agreement between 2 or more ppl (actus reus); AND
- the specific intent to both enter into the agreement and to a achieve the agreement’s criminal objective (mens rea)
**CONSPIRACY DOES NOT MERGE w/ the underlying offense
What are the two elements of attempt?
Requires:
- mens rea - specific intent to commit a crime AND
- actus reus - an OVERT act that goes beyond mere preparation
What are the two elements of the “Pinkerton rule”?
Under the “Pinkerton rule”, a conspirator will be liable for all the crimes of their co-conspirators IF those crimes were:
- committed in furtherance of the conspiracy; AND
- foreseeable, meaning “a natural and probable consequence” of the conspiracy
**judicially created doctrine
Is factual impossibility a defense to solicitation?
NO.
Factual impossibility is NOT a viable defense that the criminal solicitation itself could not have been successful
*For example: a ∆ who solicits an undercover agent to purchase illegal drugs is guilty of solicitation
What is a “chain” conspiracy involving multiple co-conspirators?
Involves a single, large conspiracy containing a series of agreements between interrelated parties (each sub-agreement is a “link” in the main “chain” relationship)
HYPO:
In a common law jurisdiction, if each of a ∆’s co-conspirators is acquitted of conspiracy, may remaining ∆ still be convicted of conspiracy?
NO
Common law conspiracy requires at least 2 guilty parties, which means the acquittal of all co-conspirators except one will mandate the acquittal of the remaining ∆
What are the 2 elements of mens rea element of conspiracy?
Requires the SPECIFIC INTENT to:
- enter into an agreement, which may be inferred from one’s conduct; AND
- achieve the agreement’s criminal objective
HYPO:
If a co-conspirator has effectively w/drawn from the conspiracy, will they be liable for the crimes committed by their co-conspirators?
NO.
Even if the conspirator would be liable for the crimes of their co-conspirators (under Pinkerton rule), the legally effective w/drawl from conspiracy will be a defense
Under common law, is w/drawl a defense to conspiracy?
GENERALLY NO.
A ∆ completes the conspiracy when they have reached the agreement and carried out the very act
**however, withdrawal may be a defense to liability for subsequent crimes committed by co-conspirators
What is the mens rea required for attempt?
Requires proof of the specific intent to commit the underlying offense, regardless of whether the target offense is a general or specific intent crime
**for example: attempted murder is a specific intent crime even though the crime of murder only requires general intent
What is the majority approach to the actus reus element of attempt?
The Majority Rule (& MPC): the ∆ must commit an overt act, beyond mere preparation, which constitutes a “substantial step” towards the actual commission of the crime
**the traditional rule was the “proximity” approach, which required an act coming dangerously close to completion of the crime
Is factual impossibility a defense to attempt?
NO.
The ∆ is guilty even if the attempted crime cannot be completed because of facts unknown to the ∆ at the time of the overt act
**only true legal impossibility is a defense to attempt, which means the ∆ misunderstood the law, believing it was a crime to do something when they set out to do it, but it was not actually a crime
Under the majority rule, is withdrawn a defense to attempt?
NO.
The majority rule is that withdrawal (or abandonment) is NEVER a defense to attempt
**HOWEVER - a minority of states and the MPC allow a withdrawal defense IF the abandonment is voluntary and not due to difficulty or increased risk, and is a complete abandonment, not merely a postponement
Does the merger doctrine apply to the crime of solicitation?
YES.
If a ∆ solicits another to commit a crime and that person completes the crime, the ∆ may not be convicted of both solicitation and the completed crime –> THE CRIMES MERGER into one charged offense
Is w/drawl a defense to solicitation?
NO.
Generally, w/drawl is NOT a defense to solicitation
**MPC allows w/drawl if the ∆ voluntarily and completely renounces AND prevents the commission of the solicited crime, but most jurisdictions of NOT follow this approach
What are the 2 elements of the actus reus element of conspiracy under the modern rule?
The modern rule for the actus reus element of conspiracy requires BOTH:
- an AGREEMENT between 2 or more parties; AND
- an OVERT ACT in furtherance of the conspiracy
Does the merger doctrine apply to the crime of conspiracy?
NO.
A ˙ who commits conspiracy to commit a crime AND completes that crime may be convicted of BOTH conspiracy and the completed offense; the crimes DO NOT MERGE together
Is factual impossibility a defense to conspiracy?
NO
If the ∆ conspired to commit a crime that could never have been actually completed, they may still be found guilty of conspiracy
HYPO:
If a ∆ agreed to commit a crime w/ a police officer who did not have genuine criminal intent, may the ∆ be convicted of conspiracy under the modern rule?
YES.
The modern rules is a “unilateral” approach, which means even if the ∆ is the only party with a “guilty mind” they may still be convicted of conspiracy
*the traditional rule was that the agreement had to be “bilateral” meaning at least 2 guilty minds
Does the merger doctrine apply to the crime of attempt?
YES
A ∆ who attempt to commit a crime and successfully completes it may NOT be convicted of both attempt and completed crime - crimes MERGE into completed offense
What is a “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy involving multiple co-conspirators?
When a single ∆ enters into separate, independent conspiracies with different, unrelated parties (the central ∆ is the “hub,” and each conspiracy is a “spoke”).
What is the 3-part legal standard for conspiracy in most states?
Majority of jurisdictions, a conspiracy requires:
- an agreement between two or more people;
- the specific intent to both enter into the agreement and to achieve the agreement’s criminal objective; AND
- the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the unlawful objective
*ANY act, even one of mere preparation, taken by a co-conspirator satisfies this requirement. The act need not be criminal in nature
