FYLSX Inchoate Offenses and Parties 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Dan asks Carl to kill Victor, offering him $5,000. Carl refuses. Dan is guilty of:
- No crime because Carl refused
- Solicitation (Correct answer)
- Attempted murder
- Conspiracy
Correct answer: Solicitation
Solicitation is complete the moment the request is made, regardless of whether the solicited party agrees.
Question 2: A conspiracy requires which of the following at common law?
- An overt act in furtherance of the agreement
- An agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act (Correct answer)
- Completion of the target offense
- Withdrawal by at least one party
Correct answer: An agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act
At common law, conspiracy requires only an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act; no overt act is required.
Question 3: Eve tells Frank she wants him to burn down a warehouse. Frank agrees and goes to buy gasoline. Under the MPC, what additional element makes this a conspiracy?
- Frank must complete the arson
- No additional element is needed beyond the agreement
- Frank must take a substantial step toward the crime
- An overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (Correct answer)
Correct answer: An overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy
The MPC requires an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, which Frank's purchase of gasoline would satisfy.
Question 4: Greg and Helen agree to rob a bank. Greg then decides not to participate and tells Helen before any overt act occurs. At common law, Greg:
- Has withdrawn from the conspiracy and faces no liability
- Is still guilty of conspiracy because the agreement was made (Correct answer)
- Can only be guilty if Helen completes the robbery
- Is guilty only of solicitation
Correct answer: Is still guilty of conspiracy because the agreement was made
At common law, withdrawal is not a defense to conspiracy because the crime is complete upon the agreement.
Question 5: Which doctrine holds that a conspirator is liable for all crimes committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy?
- Merger doctrine
- Pinkerton doctrine (Correct answer)
- Wharton's Rule
- Withdrawal doctrine
Correct answer: Pinkerton doctrine
The Pinkerton doctrine holds each conspirator vicariously liable for the substantive crimes of co-conspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Question 6: Ian shoots at Jane intending to kill her, but misses. Ian is charged with attempted murder. The best description of attempt is:
- An inchoate offense requiring a specific intent to commit the target crime and an act beyond mere preparation (Correct answer)
- Any act taken with the general intent to harm another
- A completed offense once the trigger is pulled
- An offense that merges into assault upon completion
Correct answer: An inchoate offense requiring a specific intent to commit the target crime and an act beyond mere preparation
Criminal attempt requires specific intent to commit the target crime and an act that goes beyond mere preparation toward its commission.
Question 7: Wharton's Rule provides that conspiracy charges cannot be brought when:
- The target crime requires three or more parties to commit
- The target crime by definition requires the participation of two people (Correct answer)
- One conspirator withdraws before the crime is committed
- The conspiracy involves a federal offense
Correct answer: The target crime by definition requires the participation of two people
Wharton's Rule bars a conspiracy charge when the target offense necessarily requires the concerted action of two people, such as bigamy or dueling.
FYLSX Inchoate Offenses and Parties 2
Dan asks Carl to kill Victor, offering him $5,000.
Carl refuses.
Dan is guilty of: