Criminal Law - Inchoate Crimes

Front 1

Inchoate Crimes - Generally

Back 1

incomplete crimes

require specific intent to commit the target offense

Three types:
1. solicitation
2. attempt
3. conspiracy

Front 2

Solicitation
(Elements)

Back 2

1. Enticing, advising, inciting, inducing, urging, encouraging
2. another
3. to commit a target offense

Common law: misdemeanor and crime solicited must be felony or breach of peace

Modern law (majority): requesting another to commit any offense.

Front 3

Solicitation - Other

Back 3

--solicitor must intend that solicitee perform criminal acts (mere approval is insufficient)

--solicitation is complete at the time it is made

--once solicitation is communicated, no withdraw (crime complete)

--no one actually has to perform the crime

--if crime is performed, solicitation merges into target offense and solicitor becomes accomplice

Front 4

Attempt

Back 4

1. specific intent to bring about criminal result
2. significant overt act in furtherance of intent
(showing defendant began perpetration instead of mere preparation)

Front 5

Overt Act
(Attempt)

Back 5

1. Common law:
--must perform last act necessary to achieve intended result

2. MPC:
--acts prior to last act often sufficient if considered substantial step to committing crime

3. Proximity Test (majority):
--how close in time and physical distance defendant was to the time and place target crime was to be committed

4. Equivocality test (minority):
--defendant's conduct unequivocally indicates defendant's complete target offense

Front 6

Defenses
(Attempt)

Back 6

1. abandonment
2. legal impossibility
3. factual impossibility

Front 7

Abandonment

Defenses
(Attempt)

Back 7

Common law: this is not a defense once the attempt is complete.

MPC: a voluntary and complete abandonment can be raised as a defense.

Front 8

Legal Impossibility

Defenses
(Attempt)

Back 8

Defendant thought he committed a crime but acts did not constitute a crime.

Complete defense

Front 9

Factual Impossibility

Defenses
(Attempt)

Back 9

Defendant would have committed the target offense had the facts been as he believed them to be.

Exception: the mistaken belief that the conduct is illegal

Ex: believing pistol was working points at V intending to kill V. So factually impossible for murder but guilty of attempted murder

Front 10

Conspiracy
(Elements)

Back 10

1. An agreement between 2+ people to commit a crime or a lawful act my criminal means
2. With the intent to agree and the specific intent (purpose) to commit the unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means.

Front 11

Overt Act Requirement
(Conspiracy)

Back 11

Common law:
--the agreement itself constituted the crime with no requirement to prove an overt act.

Modern statutes:
--normally require proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (the objective).

--The overt act for conspiracy simply proves that the defendants began preparation to commit the crime, and can be very trivial and far removed from the crime.

--The overt act for attempt proves that the defendant began to commit the crime, and must indicate that defendant went beyond the point of preparation and began perpetration.

Front 12

Co-conspirator liability and the Pinkerton Doctrine
(Conspiracy)

Back 12

Each co-conspirator is liable for the crimes of all the other co-conspirators where the crimes were both:
1) A foreseeable outgrowth of the conspiracy
2) Committed in furtherance of the conspiratorial goal

(**"FF test/double F test--foreseeable & furtherance)

Look to nature of agreement:
a. In a “chain” relationship:
--where several crimes are committed under one large scheme where each member explicitly or implicitly knows there are other parties participating in the conspiracy.

b. A “wheel-and-spoke” relationship:
--where one common member (wheel) enters into separate agreements to commit crimes with different individuals (spokes)—nothing connects the crimes (except the wheel) so cannot connect co-conspirators.

Front 13

Procedural Issues
(Conspiracy)

Back 13

Common law:
--if only 2, and acquit one, then must acquit remainder because must have at least 2 people for conspiracy

MPC/modern:
--unilateral conspiracy--which permits conviction of a single party when the other party feigned agreement or is acquitted

Wharton Rule:
--if target offense requires 2+ people necessary for commission, they cannot be convicted for conspiracy to commit crime--only convicted for target offense (Ex: dueling)
--Exception: if third party involved then allows conviction for all

Front 14

Defenses
(Conspiracy)

Back 14

Severs the withdrawing defendant from liability for the future crimes of former co-conspirators.

Two types:
1. Withdraw (common law & MPC):
--must be complete,
--voluntary,
--timely notice to co-conspirators


2. Renunciation (MPC):
--if co-conspirator performs affirmative act to thwart conspiracy's effect, then affirmative defense
--Works backwards to erase liability for conspiracy itself.