FYLSX - Baby Bar Inchoate Offenses and Parties Questions and Answers — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Dan, intending to rob a bank, purchased a ski mask, gloves, and a getaway car. He then drove to the bank and parked across the street, observing the security guard's patrol pattern. Just as he was about to exit his vehicle with a realistic-looking toy gun, he saw a police car pull into the bank's parking lot and lost his nerve, driving away. Under the Model Penal Code's 'substantial step' test, at what point did Dan's conduct most likely become a criminal attempt?
- When he purchased the ski mask, gloves, and getaway car.
- When he drove to the bank and parked across the street to observe it.
- When he was about to exit his vehicle with the toy gun. (Correct answer)
- His conduct never rose to the level of an attempt because he voluntarily abandoned his plan.
Correct answer: When he was about to exit his vehicle with the toy gun.
The Model Penal Code's 'substantial step' test requires conduct that is strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose. While purchasing supplies and surveilling the location are preparatory acts, the act of preparing to exit the car with the weapon to immediately perpetrate the crime is the most unequivocal 'substantial step' that goes beyond mere preparation. His abandonment was not voluntary as it was motivated by the unexpected arrival of the police.
Question 2: Adam and Beth agree to burglarize a specific house. Adam's role is to serve as the lookout while Beth enters the house. Unbeknownst to Adam, Beth brings a gun 'for protection.' During the burglary, a resident unexpectedly returns home, and Beth shoots and kills the resident. Adam is later arrested and charged with murder. Under the Pinkerton rule of co-conspirator liability, which statement is most accurate?
- Adam is not liable for murder because he did not agree to the use of a weapon or intend for anyone to be killed.
- Adam can be found liable for murder if the killing was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the burglary. (Correct answer)
- Adam is only liable for conspiracy to commit burglary, as that was the sole object of the agreement.
- Adam is only liable for murder if the prosecution can prove he knew Beth was armed.
Correct answer: Adam can be found liable for murder if the killing was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the burglary.
The Pinkerton rule holds a co-conspirator liable for any crimes committed by other co-conspirators if those crimes were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy. A killing during a burglary is often considered a foreseeable consequence of that dangerous felony, making Adam liable for the murder even if he did not personally commit the act or specifically agree to it.
Question 3: Which of the following is an essential element of the crime of solicitation?
- The person solicited must agree to commit the target crime.
- A substantial step must be taken towards the commission of the target crime.
- The defendant must intend for the person solicited to commit the target crime. (Correct answer)
- The target crime must actually be completed.
Correct answer: The defendant must intend for the person solicited to commit the target crime.
The crime of solicitation is complete when the defendant, with the specific intent that another person commit a crime, asks, encourages, or commands that person to commit the crime. The crime solicited does not need to be attempted or completed, and the person solicited does not need to agree. The crime lies in the asking itself with the requisite criminal intent.
Question 4: Driver agreed to drive Robber to a jewelry store and wait in the car while Robber committed an armed robbery. During the robbery, Robber shot and killed a security guard who tried to intervene. Driver heard the shot, panicked, and drove away, leaving Robber at the scene. As an accomplice, Driver is liable for which crimes?
- Robbery only, because he abandoned the crime after the shooting.
- Neither robbery nor murder, because his withdrawal negates his liability.
- Both robbery and murder, if the killing was a natural and probable consequence of the armed robbery. (Correct answer)
- Conspiracy only, because he did not enter the store or participate in the killing.
Correct answer: Both robbery and murder, if the killing was a natural and probable consequence of the armed robbery.
As an accomplice, Driver is liable for the intended crime (robbery) and any other crimes that are a 'natural and probable consequence' of the intended crime. A killing during an armed robbery is a classic example of a foreseeable, or natural and probable, consequence. Driver's act of driving away after the fact does not constitute a valid withdrawal that would negate his liability, as he had already provided his assistance by driving Robber to the scene.
Question 5: Paul, after helping plan a complex bank heist with his co-conspirators, has a change of heart. To effectively withdraw from the conspiracy and avoid liability for the subsequent robbery, Paul must:
- Secretly decide not to participate on the day of the robbery.
- Inform only the co-conspirator he trusts most that he is backing out.
- Take an affirmative act to notify all co-conspirators of his withdrawal before the robbery occurs. (Correct answer)
- Wait until after the robbery is complete and then report his own involvement to the police.
Correct answer: Take an affirmative act to notify all co-conspirators of his withdrawal before the robbery occurs.
To effectively withdraw from a conspiracy, a defendant must perform an affirmative act that notifies all members of the conspiracy of his withdrawal. This communication must be timely enough to allow the other co-conspirators to abandon the plan as well. Merely having a change of heart or notifying only one member is insufficient.
Question 6: Frank committed a felony bank robbery. The next day, he went to his friend Greg's house and said, 'I just robbed the First National Bank and the police are looking for me. Can you hide me and my bag of cash?' Greg, knowing Frank had committed the robbery, allowed Frank to hide in his basement and gave him a fake ID to help him escape the state. What is Greg's most likely criminal liability?
- Accomplice to robbery.
- Principal in the second degree.
- Accessory after the fact. (Correct answer)
- No liability, due to his friendship with Frank.
Correct answer: Accessory after the fact.
Greg is an accessory after the fact. The elements of this crime are: (1) a completed felony was committed by another person; (2) the defendant knew the felony was committed; and (3) the defendant personally gave aid to the felon to hinder the felon's apprehension, conviction, or punishment. Greg's actions of hiding Frank and providing a fake ID, with knowledge of the completed robbery, fit these elements perfectly. He is not an accomplice because his involvement began after the crime was complete.
FYLSX - Baby Bar Inchoate Offenses and Parties Questions and Answers
Dan, intending to rob a bank, purchased a ski mask, gloves, and a getaway car.
He then drove to the bank and parked across the street, observing the security guard's patrol pattern.
Just as he was about to exit his vehicle with a realistic-looking toy gun, he saw a police car pull into the bank's parking lot and lost his nerve, driving away.
Under the Model Penal Code's 'substantial step' test, at what point did Dan's conduct most likely become a criminal attempt?