FYLSX Inchoate Offenses and Parties 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Ian and Jane form a conspiracy to commit tax fraud. Ian withdraws effectively under the MPC by reporting the conspiracy to the IRS before any fraud is committed. What is the effect of Ian's withdrawal?
- It eliminates his liability for the conspiracy itself
- It is a defense to the conspiracy and any subsequent crimes committed by Jane
- It does not eliminate conspiracy liability but can be a defense to subsequent substantive crimes (Correct answer)
- It has no legal effect under the MPC
Correct answer: It does not eliminate conspiracy liability but can be a defense to subsequent substantive crimes
Under the MPC, effective withdrawal does not negate conspiracy liability (already complete) but does prevent liability for subsequent crimes committed by co-conspirators.
Question 2: Karl and Lisa conspire to commit burglary. Their agreement includes a plan to steal electronics. During the burglary, Lisa spontaneously assaults the homeowner. Karl is charged under Pinkerton for the assault. The court will likely:
- Convict Karl because he is automatically liable for all co-conspirator acts
- Acquit Karl if the assault was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the burglary plan (Correct answer)
- Convict Karl because assault is always foreseeable during burglary
- Acquit Karl because assault was not part of the agreement
Correct answer: Acquit Karl if the assault was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the burglary plan
Pinkerton liability requires the co-conspirator's crime to be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy; courts will acquit if the act was truly unforeseeable.
Question 3: Mike asks Nan to forge checks. Nan agrees. Before Nan forges a single check, police arrest both. At common law, without a required overt act, they are guilty of:
- Nothing, because no overt act occurred
- Conspiracy only (Correct answer)
- Solicitation only
- Both solicitation and conspiracy
Correct answer: Conspiracy only
At common law, conspiracy is complete upon the unlawful agreement with no overt act required, so both are guilty of conspiracy.
Question 4: Owen attempts to bribe a judge by handing him an envelope of cash. The judge is an undercover officer. Owen argues 'legal impossibility' because bribing an undercover cop playing a judge is not a real crime. This defense will:
- Succeed under the majority modern approach
- Fail because courts rarely allow legal impossibility as a defense to attempt (Correct answer)
- Succeed at common law but fail under the MPC
- Succeed only if Owen did not know the person was an officer
Correct answer: Fail because courts rarely allow legal impossibility as a defense to attempt
Modern courts and the MPC have largely eliminated the legal impossibility defense, especially when the defendant's intended conduct was criminal.
Question 5: Paula is asked by Quinn to help him commit robbery, but Paula declines. Two weeks later, Paula, acting on her own and unaware Quinn also plans to rob the same store, robs the store. Can Paula be convicted of conspiracy?
- Yes, because both intended to rob the same store
- No, because there was no agreement between Paula and Quinn (Correct answer)
- Yes, because Quinn solicited her
- No, because Paula withdrew when she declined Quinn's request
Correct answer: No, because there was no agreement between Paula and Quinn
Conspiracy requires an agreement; parallel criminal intent without any agreement between the parties does not constitute a conspiracy.
Question 6: Ray counsels Susan to commit embezzlement, then Ray dies before Susan commits the crime. Susan embezzles funds. At common law, Ray's estate faces:
- Liability for conspiracy because the agreement was formed before Ray's death
- No criminal liability because Ray died before the crime was completed (Correct answer)
- Accessory before the fact liability transferred to Ray's heirs
- Solicitation liability only
Correct answer: No criminal liability because Ray died before the crime was completed
Criminal liability is personal and does not survive death; Ray's estate cannot face criminal charges because criminal culpability does not transfer.
Question 7: Tina, Ulrich, and Victor conspire to sell stolen goods. Victor is acquitted at trial. Can Tina and Ulrich still be convicted of conspiracy under the traditional bilateral approach?
- Yes, because an acquittal is not the same as a finding of innocence (Correct answer)
- No, because conspiracy requires at least two guilty parties under the bilateral approach
- Yes, because the jury may have acquitted Victor on other grounds
- No, because all co-conspirators must be convicted together
Correct answer: Yes, because an acquittal is not the same as a finding of innocence
Under the bilateral approach, an acquittal of one co-conspirator does not automatically bar conviction of others because acquittals may be based on procedural grounds, not factual innocence.
FYLSX Inchoate Offenses and Parties 5
Ian and Jane form a conspiracy to commit tax fraud.
Ian withdraws effectively under the MPC by reporting the conspiracy to the IRS before any fraud is committed.
What is the effect of Ian's withdrawal?