FYLSX Inchoate Offenses and Parties 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: 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?
- No, because he never entered the structure
- No, because mere preparation is not enough
- Yes, because reconnoitering a location is a substantial step (Correct answer)
- Yes, but only if he had already formed a plan
Correct 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.
Question 2: 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?
- No, because a true agreement between two persons requires both to intend the crime
- Yes, because Lena genuinely agreed to commit the offense (Correct answer)
- No, because law enforcement cannot be co-conspirators
- Yes, only if Mike pretended to agree long enough to form a contract
Correct 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.
Question 3: Nina solicits Oscar to commit arson. Oscar agrees, and both take steps toward the crime. The solicitation charge will:
- Merge into the conspiracy charge (Correct answer)
- Remain as a separate charge alongside conspiracy
- Merge into the arson charge
- Be dismissed because Oscar agreed
Correct 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.
Question 4: 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:
- Conspiracy and arson as an accomplice
- Solicitation
- No crime, because his statement was too vague to constitute solicitation (Correct answer)
- Incitement as a principal
Correct 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.
Question 5: 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?
- Yes, if the shooting was a foreseeable consequence of the robbery (Correct answer)
- No, because Rachel did not agree to any violence
- Yes, automatically, because she is a co-conspirator
- No, because the shooting was not part of the original plan
Correct 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.
Question 6: Tom intends to pick-pocket Victor but accidentally grabs an empty wallet. Tom is charged with attempted theft. His defense of 'factual impossibility' will:
- Succeed, because it was impossible to steal from an empty wallet
- Fail, because factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt (Correct answer)
- Succeed, because no property was available to take
- Fail only if Tom is charged under the MPC
Correct 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.
Question 7: Under the common law 'proximity' test for attempt, a court will most likely find attempt when the defendant:
- Has formed the intent to commit the crime
- Has taken every step necessary to commit the crime except the final act (Correct answer)
- Has purchased materials that could be used in the crime
- Has researched how to commit the crime online
Correct 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.
FYLSX Inchoate Offenses and Parties 3
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?