The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
2) Required mental state
3) Completion requried?
1) ASKING someone to commit a crime, with the INTENT that the crime be committed
2) SPECIFIC INTENT (desire that other person commit the crime requested)
3) COMPLETION UNNECESSARY—Crime is in the ASKING (Person asked need not actually complete the requested crime or even agree for ∆ to be guilty)
2) Required mental state
3) Completion required?
2) SPECIFIC INTENT
- ILLEGAL AGREEMENT between 2+ people to commit a crime, plus an
- OVERT ACT in furtherance of that crime (even if minimal)
to accomplish conspiracy's objective
3) COMPLETION UNNECESSARY
—Crime is in the illegal agreement and overt act
1) Possible to have a one-person conspiracy?
2) Liability for crimes committed by co-conspirators?
1) ONE-PERSON CONSPIRACY?
2) VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR CRIMES OF CO-CONSPIRATORS?
- COMMON LAW: No. Must have at least 2 guilty minds
- NY/MPC: Yes. ∆ may be guilty, even if other parties are acquitted or just pretending to agree
- COMMON LAW: YES, if crimes (i) FURTHERED conspiracy, and (ii) were FORESEEABLE
- NY RULE: NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY
1) Majority definition?
2) NY definition?
3) Required mental state?
1) MAJORITY DEFINITION
2) NY DEFINITION
- Conduct that is a SUBSTANTIAL STEPS towards the crime, and
- STRONGLY CORROBORATIVE of a criminal purpose
—Conduct that gets DANGEROUSLY CLOSE to commission of the crime
3) SPECIFIC INTENT
to commit the attempted crime (Note
–can't be guilty of unintentional crimes (e.g., recklessness, negligence, felony murder))
1) is factual impossibility a defense?
2) is legal impossibility a defense?
- 1) NOT A DEFENSE TO ATTEMPTED CRIME
- A claim that it was impossible to complete the crime because of outside forces is NOT A DEFENSE to an attempted crime
- ∆ isn't innocent, merely because things didn't go his/her way—still specifically intended to commit a crime
(defense to attempted crime)
- Impossible to commit crime if acts aren't illegal
- ∆'s sincere belief that acts are illegal doesn't transmute them into a crime
Is WITHDRAWAL, RENUNCIATION, or ABANDONMENT a defense to an inchoate crime under
1) Common law?
1) NOT A DEFENSE
(except that ∆ is no longer vicariously liable, once he leaves a conspiracy)
2) CAN BE A DEFENSE
, but only if
- ∆ VOLUNTARILY and COMPLETELY renounces the crime, AND
- renunciation is based on a genuine CHANGE OF HEART (i.e., new found morality)
MERGER of crimes
1) Rule for lesser offenses, included in a greater offense
2) Rule for inchoate offenses
1) LESSER OFFENSE MERGES with the greater offense (i.e., charged only with greater offense)
2) MERGER OF INCHOATE OFFENSES depends on the offense
- ATTEMPT: lesser offense MERGES with completed offense
- CONSPIRACY: NO MERGER (i.e., can be charged with conspiracy AND other crimes)
- SOLICITATION: Lesser offense MERGES with greater offense under COMMON LAW, but NO MERGER under NY LAW