Inchoate Offenses and Parties Flashcards

Karl is charged with attempted burglary. He drove to the victim's house, parked outside, and was caught with lock-picking tools before entering. Under the MPC 'substantial step' test, is this sufficient for attempt?

Answer: Yes, because reconnoitering a location is a substantial step

Under the MPC, lying in wait, reconnoitering a location, or possessing tools at the scene are substantial steps corroborating criminal purpose.

Lena agrees with Mike to commit fraud. Mike is an undercover officer who never intended to commit fraud. Under the 'unilateral' conspiracy approach (MPC), is there a valid conspiracy?

Answer: Yes, because Lena genuinely agreed to commit the offense

The MPC's unilateral approach allows a conspiracy conviction when only one party genuinely agrees to commit the crime.

Nina solicits Oscar to commit arson. Oscar agrees, and both take steps toward the crime. The solicitation charge will:

Answer: Merge into the conspiracy charge

Solicitation merges into conspiracy (or the completed crime) once the solicited party agrees and the parties move forward together.

Paul tells Quincy: 'I'd love it if someone burned down the city hall.' Quincy, inspired, later burns it down without further contact with Paul. Paul is likely guilty of:

Answer: No crime, because his statement was too vague to constitute solicitation

Solicitation requires a specific request directed at a specific person to commit a specific crime; a vague general expression of desire does not qualify.

Rachel and Sam conspire to rob a jewelry store. During the robbery, Sam impulsively shoots a security guard. Rachel had no idea Sam was armed. Under Pinkerton, is Rachel liable for the shooting?

Answer: Yes, if the shooting was a foreseeable consequence of the robbery

Under Pinkerton, a co-conspirator is liable for crimes committed by partners that were reasonably foreseeable in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Tom intends to pick-pocket Victor but accidentally grabs an empty wallet. Tom is charged with attempted theft. His defense of 'factual impossibility' will:

Answer: Fail, because factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt

Factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt; the defendant is guilty because the intended act would have been criminal if the facts were as he believed them.

Under the common law 'proximity' test for attempt, a court will most likely find attempt when the defendant:

Answer: Has taken every step necessary to commit the crime except the final act

The common law proximity test focuses on how close the defendant was to completing the crime, often requiring the last proximate act or near-completion.