Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Conspiracy (inchoate offense) - Coggle Diagram
Conspiracy (inchoate offense)
if two or more persons agree that one of them will commit an offense and one of them then performs an overt act toward commission of that offense, they can all be held liable for conspiracy to commit the offense, even if the substantive offense [the target or object offense of an inchoate offense, it is the offense that the attempter or conspirators are planning to commit] is never consummate (a group planning to commit a crime, is a crime in itself) | punishment for conspiracy is typically half the punishment of the completed offense
if the offense committed then the perpetrator can be charged for the substantive offense and co-conspirators can also be held liable for the substantive offense if he satisfies the requirements for complicity liability (agreement alone is not enough to be held liable for conspiracy)
Pinkerton Rule
a conspirator may be held liable as an accomplice to all substantive offenses committed by the co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy, even if the defendant did not actually take any action to assist (or even try to assist) any of those offenses
limit to Pinkerton Rule
Pinkerton limits liability to offense committed before withdrawal [withdrawal offense- a member of a conspiracy may be able to end their on-going liability for the actions of their co-conspirators by withdrawing from the conspiracy; the withdrawal does not provide a defense to liability for the conspiracy itself; to be effective must communicated to all of the co-conspirators and must be made in time for the others to abandon the conspiracy]
Different approaches to the Pinkerton Rule
Pinkerton, no withdrawal defense
Pinkerton, withdrawal defense allowed if positive steps taken
Pinkerton Rule, where simple withdrawal is defense
No Pinkerton, no termination defense to complicity
No Pinkerton, termination defense to complicity
How to withdraw under MPC: trying to prevent the offense or giving a warning to law enforcement about the offense
can withdraw from conspiracy and once withdraw not liable for FUTURE parts of the conspiracy, but are liable for everything prior to the withdrawal
Wharton’s Rule: bars conviction of both conspiracy and the target offense that are defined to involve a group, since conviction for the target offense would already take into account the harm of group criminality and adding conspiracy liability would improperly “double count” that harm
doesn’t apply if the offender not convicted for the target offense
Example: the crime of unlawful restraint of trade requires two people to fix prices so couldn’t charge them for conspiracy and unlawful restraint of trade | however, if only agree to fix price but don’t actually do it then they can be charged with conspiracy
What can signal agreement in conspiracy?
Speaking
Writing
Nodding
Or silence if meant to show positive agreement
bilateral agreement requirement (used in CL): both parties have to be agreeing, not just pretending to agree
Overt act by 1 of the conspirators in furtherance of the agreement is needed, any overt act by one of the conspirators will suffice to support liability for conspiracy for all the co-conspirators (still have to find agreement and culpability by each of the conspirators)
When does conspiracy end for conspirator?
(1) the object of the conspiracy is completed
(2) the conspiracy is abandoned or
(3) the actor withdraws from the conspiracy
MPC way to terminate the conspiracy as a whole: after period of limitation has passed with no overt act by any of the conspirators
requirements for agreement
(1) Meeting of the minds
(2) Overt act from one of the conspirators
unilateral rule (new rule): just need one person to agree to the agreement (one person agrees with someone else, even if that person doesn’t have intention) | this is what MPC uses | Stein said issue is cheapens notion of wrongdoing we are protecting against is the agreement of one or more person agreeing to the crime