Inchoate crimes (specific-intent crimes)

Question 1

What is an inchoate crime?

Answer 1

Inchoate offenses are specific-intent crimes. A person can be held criminally liable for inchoate offenses even if the intended crime was not fully executed.

Inchoate means being “only partly in existence” or “not yet fully developed.”

Question 2

What are the three inchoate offenses?

Answer 2

-> solicitation
-> conspiracy
-> attempt

Question 3

How does the merger doctrine, and how does it work for inchoate offenses and the completed crime?

Answer 3

The merger doctrine is when you are tried for both an inchoate offense and the completed crime, but you’re only punished for the completed crime as the inchoate offense MERGES into the completed crime.

D may be tried, BUT NOT CONVICTED for
-> solicitation and the completed crime
-> attempt and the completed crime
-> under the MPC, more than one inchoate offense (can be tried for multiple but only punished for 1)

Note: D can be tried AND convicted of both conspiracy and the completed crime

Question 4

At common law, which too inchoate offenses don’t merge into one another?

Answer 4

Conspiracy and attempt.

Question 5

What are the requirements of solicitation?

Answer 5

-> enticing, encouraging, requesting, or commanding another person
-> to commit a crime
-> with the intent that the other person commits the crime

Question 6

What is a defense to solicitation?

Answer 6

Renunciation (MPC)
-> voluntary renunciation may be a defense if D thwarts the commission of the solicited crime

Question 7

What are the elements of a conspiracy?

Answer 7

-> an agreement (either express or implied)
-> between two or more persons (bilateral conspiracy)
-> to accomplish an unlawful purpose
-> with the intent to accomplish that purpose

Question 8

Is there a conspiracy if the other co-conspirator is entering into the conspiracy under a feigned agreement?

Answer 8

Common law conspiracy requires proof of at least two guilty minds, so a defendant cannot be convicted of conspiracy if the other alleged conspirator(s) feigned agreement.

E.g. An undercover cop agreeing to a conspiracy.

Question 9

What is a unilateral conspiracy? Is it recognized under the MPC and CL?

Answer 9

May be formed when only one party actually agrees (majority and MPC; not recognized under CL) to the conspiracy, so they can be charged with the crime of conspiracy.

Question 10

Is an overt act required in conspiracy?

Answer 10

Under common law
-> over act is not required

Majority / federal / MPC
-> requires a lawful or unlawful overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy
BUT
-> MPC does not require an overt act if the conspiratorial crime is a first or second degree felony

Question 11

What is the scope of liability for a conspirator regarding a conspiracy?

Answer 11

A conspirator is liable for conspiracy and the co-conspirators’ substantive crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy (Pinkerton Rule)

Question 12

What is the liability of D after withdrawal from a conspiracy regarding liability for the conspiracy?

Answer 12

Federal / majority rule
-> withdrawal is possible after the agreement and BEFORE the commission of an overt act, but D must give notice to con-conspirators or give timely notice to police

MPC / minority rule
-> subsequent withdrawal is possible only if D acts voluntarily to “thwart the success” of the conspiracy

Question 13

What is the liability of D after withdrawal from a conspiracy regarding liability for substantive crimes?

Answer 13

For this purpose, D may withdraw by giving notice to his co-conspirators or timely advising legal authorities of the existence of the conspiracy even though such an action does not thwart the conspiracy.

Question 14

What are the requirements of attempt?

Answer 14

-> a substantial step toward commission of crime (beyond mere preparation); couples with
-> the specific intent to commit the crime

Question 15

Are the following two defenses to attempt possible:
-> factual impossibility
-> abandonment

Answer 15

Factual impossibility
-> not a defense (legal impossibility is a defense = attempted act is not illegal)
-> e.g. Party A shots B while B is sleeping, but B is actually dead. A is liable for attempted murder but not murder (factual impossibility is not a defense)

Abandonment
-> not a defense after completion of actus reus (substantial step or dangerous proximity)

Question 16

How does the merger doctrine work with attempt when the crime is completed?

Answer 16

If the crime is completed, the attempt merges into the completed crime (D may be charged with both, but may be convicted of only one).