FYLSX Inchoate Offenses and Parties 5

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?

Accepted Answer

It does not eliminate conspiracy liability but can be a defense to subsequent substantive crimes

Answer

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:

Accepted Answer

Acquit Karl if the assault was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the burglary plan

Answer

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:

Accepted Answer

Conspiracy only

Answer

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:

Accepted Answer

Fail because courts rarely allow legal impossibility as a defense to attempt

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

No, because there was no agreement between Paula and Quinn

Answer

Conspiracy requires an agreement; parallel criminal intent without any agreement between the parties does not constitute a conspiracy.

(FYLSX) Baby Bar Exam Practice Test

(FYLSX) Baby Bar Exam Practice Test

FYLSX Inchoate Offenses and Parties 5