Inchoate Offenses/Accomplice Liability

Question 1

What constitutes a criminal attempt?

Answer 1

A person, with the specific intent to commit an offense, takes a ‘substantial step’ toward commission of the offense.

Question 2

What must the actor intentionally commit to establish a criminal attempt?

Answer 2

An overt act beyond mere preparation that falls short of completing the crime (a “substantial step” in most jurisdictions)

Question 3

Can a person be liable for attempted murder if they accidentally discharge a firearm?

Answer 3

No, because they did not intentionally commit the acts constituting the actus reus of the attempt.

Question 4

What is required for a person to have specific intent in a result-based offense?

Answer 4

A person cannot have specific intent if the offense requires a reckless or criminal negligent mens rea.

Question 5

Can a person be liable for attempt to commit involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 5

No, because it is a result-based offense requiring a reckless or criminal negligence mens rea.

(attempt requires specific intent)

Question 6

Can a person be liable for attempted murder or attempted arson?

Answer 6

Yes, if these result-based offenses require a malice mens rea.

Question 7

Is a racecar driver liable for attempted murder if they drive recklessly but do not intend to harm anyone?

Answer 7

No, because they do not have the specific intent to commit murder.

Question 8

What is a ‘substantial step’ in the context of criminal attempt?

Answer 8

An action beyond mere preparation that strongly corroborates the defendant’s criminal purpose.

Question 9

What does Section 5.01(2) of the Model Penal Code state about substantial steps?

Answer 9

It lists recurrent fact patterns that shall not be held insufficient as a matter of law if they strongly corroborate the defendant’s criminal purpose.

Question 10

List two examples of actions that can constitute a ‘substantial step’ according to the Model Penal Code.

Answer 10

• Lying in wait, searching for or following the contemplated victim of the crime
• Unlawful entry of a structure, vehicle or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be committed

Question 11

What is the common law ‘dangerous proximity’ test?

Answer 11

A test that requires an act ‘so near the result that the danger of success is very great.’

Question 12

Is the dangerous proximity test broader or narrower than the substantial step test?

Answer 12

Narrower; it is usually more difficult to hold a defendant liable under the dangerous proximity test.

Question 13

Fill in the blank: A substantial step is an action beyond mere preparation that strongly ________ the defendant’s criminal purpose.

Answer 13

[corroborates]

Question 14

What does solicitation consist of?

Answer 14

Inviting, requesting, commanding, hiring, or encouraging another to commit a crime

Question 15

When is the crime of solicitation considered completed?

Answer 15

Upon the request, regardless of whether the other person agrees to commit the crime

Question 16

What is required for solicitation to be charged?

Answer 16

Specific intent that the other person complete the solicited crime

Question 17

Is jokingly requesting another to commit a crime considered criminal solicitation?

Answer 17

No

Question 18

Is requesting another to commit a crime that is factually impossible considered solicitation?

Answer 18

No

Question 19

Is requesting assistance to commit a crime that the defendant intends to complete by himself considered solicitation?

Answer 19

No

Question 20

What is meant by using another as an ‘innocent instrumentality’ in the context of solicitation?

Answer 20

Using another person to commit a crime without that person being culpable

Question 21

What does the merger principle in solicitation entail?

Answer 21

Solicitation merges with the target offense, meaning a person cannot be convicted for both solicitation and the target offense

Question 22

What is the renunciation defense in solicitation?

Answer 22

In most jurisdictions, it is not a defense that the solicitor renounces or withdraws the solicitation

Question 23

Under the Model Penal Code, when is a person not liable for solicitation?

Answer 23

If he completely and voluntarily renounces his criminal intent and prevents the solicited party from committing the crime

Question 24

What motivates the renunciation for it to be valid under the Model Penal Code?

Answer 24

Genuine remorse, not merely to avoid detection

Question 25

What is the first component of common law conspiracy?

Answer 25

An agreement (express or implied) between two or more persons ## Footnote This agreement can be either explicit or inferred from the actions of the parties involved.

Question 26

What must the agreement in a common law conspiracy aim to do?

Answer 26

To commit a criminal act or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful means ## Footnote The means used to accomplish a legal act must be unlawful.

Question 27

What is required regarding intent in common law conspiracy?

Answer 27

At least 2 persons must have the intent to form the agreement and achieve its object ## Footnote Intent may be inferred from the conduct of the parties.

Question 28

Does the object of the agreement in common law conspiracy need to constitute a crime?

Answer 28

No, it can include acts that are corrupt, dishonest, fraudulent, or immoral ## Footnote This broadens the scope of what can be considered conspiratorial acts.

Question 29

What is the plurality requirement in common law conspiracy?

Answer 29

Bilateral Approach: Both parties must have specific intent to commit the target offense ## Footnote If one party lacks intent (e.g., an undercover officer), there is no conspiracy.

Question 30

What is the modern trend regarding conspiracy intent?

Answer 30

Unilateral Approach: A conspiracy can exist even if only one party has the specific intent ## Footnote This reflects a shift in how conspiracy is understood in contemporary law.

Question 31

What is required in many states for a conspiracy to be prosecutable?

Answer 31

An overt act committed in furtherance of the criminal objective ## Footnote The overt act does not need to be criminal in nature.

Question 32

What constitutes a sufficient overt act in a conspiracy?

Answer 32

Any act by a conspirator that furthers the conspiracy's objective ## Footnote For example, buying a hammer to commit burglary is a sufficient overt act.

Question 33

When is the crime of conspiracy considered complete?

Answer 33

When the agreement is formed or, in some jurisdictions, once an overt act is committed ## Footnote This marks the point when legal implications arise.

Question 34

Is withdrawal from a conspiracy a defense at common law once the offense is complete?

Answer 34

No, abandonment or withdrawal is not a defense to the conspiracy offense ## Footnote This is because the crime is considered complete once the agreement is formed.

Question 35

Under what conditions can withdrawal be a defense to crimes committed in furtherance of a conspiracy?

Answer 35

If the conspirator renounces his criminal purpose and thwarts the success of the conspiracy ## Footnote This must demonstrate a complete and voluntary renunciation of criminal intent.

Question 36

What does the Model Penal Code say about conspiracy and affirmative defense?

Answer 36

An affirmative defense is available if the conspirator renounces his criminal purpose ## Footnote This is contingent on successfully thwarting the conspiracy.

Question 37

Does conspiracy merge with the completed crime?

Answer 37

No, conspiracy does NOT merge with the completed crime ## Footnote A defendant may be convicted of both the crimes committed and the conspiracy itself.

Question 38

What is Pinkerton Liability?

Answer 38

A defendant can be held vicariously liable for crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy by his co-conspirators. ## Footnote This principle allows for shared responsibility among conspirators for actions taken by any member in pursuit of the conspiracy's goals.

Question 39

What type of evidence can be used against co-conspirators?

Answer 39

An out-of-court statement made by a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy. ## Footnote This means statements made during the conspiracy can be used in court against any member involved.

Question 40

What is the advantage of Joint Trials for prosecutors?

Answer 40

Prosecutors prefer to bring all co-conspirators to trial in a single proceeding rather than prosecute each in separate trials. ## Footnote This can be disadvantageous for more 'innocent' parties involved in the conspiracy.

Question 41

What is the Over Act Requirement in conspiracy cases?

Answer 41

A single overt act by any member of the conspiracy is sufficient to prosecute every member of the conspiracy. ## Footnote This means that not all members need to participate in the overt act for prosecution.

Question 42

When does a conspiracy terminate?

Answer 42

A conspiracy generally terminates upon completion of the criminal objective. ## Footnote Acts and statements made after this completion cannot be used against defendants.

Question 43

What is required for a defendant to be a member of a conspiracy?

Answer 43

A defendant must have a general awareness of the scope and objective of the criminal enterprise. ## Footnote This includes a community of interest or reason to know of each other’s existence.

Question 44

Is it necessary for a conspirator to know all other members of the conspiracy?

Answer 44

No, a person does not need to know the identity or existence of every other member of the conspiracy. ## Footnote Participation in every detail or event of the conspiracy is also not required.

Question 45

What is a wheel conspiracy?

Answer 45

A wheel conspiracy involves one person/group (the 'hub') entering into illicit transactions with various other persons/groups (the 'spokes'). ## Footnote An example is one person serving as a broker for multiple others in obtaining fraudulent loans.

Question 46

How can a wheel conspiracy be classified?

Answer 46

It can be a single large conspiracy if the spokes have a community of interest or several smaller conspiracies if they do not. ## Footnote This classification depends on the relationship between the spokes.

Question 47

What is a chain conspiracy?

Answer 47

A chain conspiracy involves several layers of personnel dealing with a single subject matter. ## Footnote An example includes a manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer working together to sell an illegal drug.

Question 48

Why is a chain conspiracy usually considered a single conspiracy?

Answer 48

Each member usually has a general awareness of the scope and objective of the criminal enterprise. ## Footnote This collective awareness links the actions of all members toward a common goal.

Question 49

What is a Principal in the context of crime?

Answer 49

The principal is the person who commits the illegal act or who causes an innocent agent to do so.

Question 50

Who is considered an Accomplice?

Answer 50

The accomplice is the person who aids or encourages the principal to commit the illegal conduct.

Question 51

Define an Accessory After the Fact.

Answer 51

An accessory after the fact is a person who aids another to escape knowing that he has committed a felony.

Question 52

What is the liability of an accessory after the fact?

Answer 52

An accessory after the fact is ONLY liable for the less serious offense of being an accessory after the fact.

Question 53

What crimes is an accomplice liable for?

Answer 53

An accomplice is liable for all the crimes that the principal committed AND all other crimes that were a probable or foreseeable result.

Question 54

Under what conditions is an accomplice liable for crimes?

Answer 54

If the accomplice aids, abets, or facilitates the commission of a crime committed by the principal with the intent that the crime be committed.

Question 55

What is Withdrawal in the context of accomplice liability?

Answer 55

Withdrawal is a valid defense to accomplice liability if the accomplice withdraws his involvement BEFORE the crime becomes unstoppable.

Question 56

What is Repudiation regarding accomplice involvement?

Answer 56

Repudiation is a sufficient withdrawal for mere encouragement.

Question 57

What must an accomplice do if their involvement went beyond mere encouragement?

Answer 57

The accomplice must attempt to neutralize his assistance for the withdrawal to be sufficient.