Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

11 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Conspiracy [MR MPC SI/GI distinction]
b. MPC: no SI/GI distinction. D is guilty if acts with the “purpose of promoting or facilitating” the commission of the conduct that constitutes a crime… [see MPC 5.03]
Conspirators Accountability: Pinkerton Rule
a. Pinkerton Rule: If a substantive offense is committed in furtherance of a conspiracy, then all parties to the conspiracy are liable for the substantive offenses (as well as for the conspiracy). i. Limitations of a co-conspirator’s liability. b. No liability for substantive crime if: i. Not done in furtherance of the conspiracy ii. Did not fall within the scope of the conspiracy OR iii. Could not be reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the conspiracy.
Conspirators--Special Defenses [Main Defenses on the Slides]
a. Wharton’s rule – Where underlying offense cannot be committed without cooperation between at least two people, there is no conspiracy (unless more than two agree or other people will commit the underlying offense i. Think about a prostitute. But a prostitute and a pimp is in this. ii. Prostitution, Bigamy and adultery b. Abandonment – conspiracy forms when agreement is formed i. CL: But can withdraw to avoid further liability (note: must communicate and some counts requires successful dissuasion). ii. MPC: It’s an affirmative defense if D renounces or thwarts a success in a way that shows complete and voluntary renunciation of a criminal intent.
What are the two theories of complicity
i. Accomplice Liability ii. Another is complicity
Accomplice Liability
1. Accomplice: one who, with the requisite MR, assists the primary party in committing an offense. a. MR: (1) intent to assist the primary party to engage in the conduct that forms basis of the offense AND (2) has MR required for the commission of the offense b. AR: How does one “assist”? (1)physical conduct, OR (2)psychological influence (inciting, soliciting or encouraging), or (3)assistance by omission (where duty to intervene exists) 2. No “accomplice” unless someone actually committed the underlying crime – no identification, trial or conviction needed (probable cause enough). 3.. MPC 3, 997, you will find MPC for accomplice liability
What are Accomplices accountable for? [test]
a. Accomplices: liable for crime itself and all reasonably foreseeable crimes b. Test: i. Did the primary party commit the target offense (or the inchoate version of it)? ii. If so, is D an accomplice to this offense? iii. If yes, did primary party commit any other crimes? iv. If yes, were these crimes reasonably forseeable consequences of the original crime that the accomplice assisted in? Note: You have to make some kind of argument that this killing was reasonably forseeable from the robbery that took place. Sometimes its grey, sometimes its more clear cut.
D meets MR for conspiracy (and, by implication, the principal’s offense via complicity) if he:
i. Knows of the crime and ii. Either 1. He “intends to participate” (has purpose that crime occurs) or 2. The crime is very harmful (ie, more than misdemeanor) or 3. He has a “stake” in the crime, meaning: a. He charges criminals above-market prices, b. Derives the bulk of his profits by supplying them, c. There is no legitimate purpose for the type of goods supplied, or d. There is not legitimate purpose for the volume of goods supplied.
Accomplice Liablity Issues re: Actus reus [Case Law]
1. State v. Vaillancourt: Case with burglary by one and another stood by and made small talk with the burglar Accompaniment and observation are not sufficient acts to constitute “aid” so as to satisfy the elements necessary for accomplice liability or ay other crime 2. Wilcox v. Jeffery: An American musician came to England and was received by a journalist who did an article on his performance. Presence and payment to attend an illegal performance in order to attain benefit for oneself can constitute aiding and abetting the criminal act. 3. People v. Genoa: An undercover received a solicitation for the officer to buy and sell cocaine and provide the solicitor with his money back for the solicitor’s investment, some profit and a client list. A person cannot be convicted of aiding and abetting the commission of a crime when the underlying crime was never committed by anyone
Accomplice Liablity Issues re: Actus reus [2 questions to ask]
1. What does the primary actor (principal) do? 2. How does D (alleged accomplice) purportedly “assist” in the crime?
"Presence +" analysis for accomplice liability
1. List of stuff that is enouph [presence +] a. Presence + acting as a lookout b. Presence + stimulates others to help the actor is also enopuh (Mob Boss) c. Presence + previous agreement for conspiracy 2. Presence + =not enough a. Presence + flight = not enough b. Presence + mental undisclosed approval c. Presence + undisclosed intention to help is not enough.
Scope of Accomplice Liability [Case Law]
a. What if primary actor is acquitted (Lopez) i. United States v. Lopez: Defendant landed a helicopter on the grounds of a prison to free his girlfriend who’s life was unlawfully threatened in the prison. A defendant can be convicted of aiding and abetting even if the principal is not identified or convicted, however an aider or abettor may not be held liable absent proof that a criminal offense was committed by a principal. b. What if primary actor is convicted? (McCoy) i. People v. McCoy: D1 shot victim with self defense. D2 aided but got a harsher sentence cuz no defense An accomplice’s mens rea may be deemed more culpable than that of the principal perpetrator of the crime, and thus, the accomplice may be convicted of a greater offense than the offense for which the principal perpetrator is convicted. c. Limits to accomplice liability (In Re Megan) i. In Re Megan R.: girl abetting her own statutory rape. Culpable? the party whose participation is not denounced/is protected by statute cannot be charged with criminal conduct on either a conspiracy or aiding and abetting theory.