Quick Criminal Law (1L) Question Forum

[igo2northwestern]

Can you be liable for attempt, complicity, solicitation, and conspiracy at the same time?

Is there any variation of the above that cannot work?



Please help. Thanks in advance!!

[igo2northwestern]

bump

[jess]

.

[Judge Philip Banks]

You can't aid and abet (complicity) an attempted crime. But there could definitely be a conspiracy/Pinkerton hypo where you can be charged with all of those crimes.

[lawnerd1]

You can't aid and abet (complicity) an attempted crime. But there could definitely be a conspiracy/Pinkerton hypo where you can be charged with all of those crimes.

Really?
X conspires with Y to kill A. They recruit B to find them a hit man. B solicits D to shoot A; D walks up to A and his gun jams. Is that how it would work?

[menlow]

You can't aid and abet (complicity) an attempted crime. But there could definitely be a conspiracy/Pinkerton hypo where you can be charged with all of those crimes.

You CAN aid and abet an attempted crime.

A and B break into V's house, both with the intent to kill V. A fires at V, but fortuitously misses. B is an accomplice to A's attempt. Both under common law and the MPC.

Attempt issue:
Common law: intent the result (murder) would occur, intent to commit conduct. (both present)
MPC: purpose or belief the result would occur, purpose to commit the conduct. (both present)

Accomplice liability issue:
Common law: B had intent to aid and intent that the result (murder) occur. The mens rea required for accomplice liability is that of the underlying crime (intent in this case, which was present)
MPC: B's purpose was to promote or facilitate the underlying crime, so he is an accomplice to A's conduct.

This is a very confusing principle - it's called a double inchoate offense. Just wanted to clear that up.

[Judge Philip Banks]

You can't aid and abet (complicity) an attempted crime. But there could definitely be a conspiracy/Pinkerton hypo where you can be charged with all of those crimes.

You CAN aid and abet an attempted crime.

A and B break into V's house, both with the intent to kill V. A fires at V, but fortuitously misses. B is an accomplice to A's attempt. Both under common law and the MPC.

Attempt issue:
Common law: intent the result (murder) would occur, intent to commit conduct. (both present)
MPC: purpose or belief the result would occur, purpose to commit the conduct. (both present)

Accomplice liability issue:
Common law: B had intent to aid and intent that the result (murder) occur. The mens rea required for accomplice liability is that of the underlying crime (intent in this case, which was present)
MPC: B's purpose was to promote or facilitate the underlying crime, so he is an accomplice to A's conduct.

This is a very confusing principle - it's called a double inchoate offense. Just wanted to clear that up.

Fair enough. Just going by my professor's definition of aiding and abetting (must aid and abet a completed crime). Thanks for clearing up any confusion.

[menlow]

You can't aid and abet (complicity) an attempted crime. But there could definitely be a conspiracy/Pinkerton hypo where you can be charged with all of those crimes.

You CAN aid and abet an attempted crime...

Fair enough. Just going by my professor's definition of aiding and abetting (must aid and abet a completed crime). Thanks for clearing up any confusion.

Exactly, and that's why double inchoate offenses are often overlooked - the murder was not completed, but the attempt was. Remember it for the exam!

[Judge Philip Banks]

You can't aid and abet (complicity) an attempted crime. But there could definitely be a conspiracy/Pinkerton hypo where you can be charged with all of those crimes.

You CAN aid and abet an attempted crime...

Fair enough. Just going by my professor's definition of aiding and abetting (must aid and abet a completed crime). Thanks for clearing up any confusion.

Exactly, and that's why double inchoate offenses are often overlooked - the murder was not completed, but the attempt was. Remember it for the exam!

Haha, what you are saying makes sense, but my professor specifically said in our review yesterday that there can be no aiding and abetting of attempts. So I just gotta go by what the professor says for the exam unfortunately...

[menlow]

Haha, what you are saying makes sense, but my professor specifically said in our review yesterday that there can be no aiding and abetting of attempts. So I just gotta go by what the professor says for the exam unfortunately...

You win!

Mine said the exact opposite in the review.

[Judge Philip Banks]

Haha, what you are saying makes sense, but my professor specifically said in our review yesterday that there can be no aiding and abetting of attempts. So I just gotta go by what the professor says for the exam unfortunately...

You win!

Mine said the exact opposite in the review.

Haha. Just goes to show how every professor is different...

[03121202698008]

Haha, what you are saying makes sense, but my professor specifically said in our review yesterday that there can be no aiding and abetting of attempts. So I just gotta go by what the professor says for the exam unfortunately...

Are you sure he didn't say you cannot attempt to aid & abet? Their is a difference between attempting to aid & abet and aiding and abetting an attempted commission.

[Judge Philip Banks]

Haha, what you are saying makes sense, but my professor specifically said in our review yesterday that there can be no aiding and abetting of attempts. So I just gotta go by what the professor says for the exam unfortunately...

Are you sure he didn't say you cannot attempt to aid & abet? Their is a difference between attempting to aid & abet and aiding and abetting an attempted commission.

Yep. My prof said that you can only aid and abet a complete crime, and since attempt is inchoate, there can be no aiding and abetting attempted crimes. She may have misspoke, but she said that in reply to a question someone asked at our review. So whether she's wrong or right, that is what she said. (which is counter to how I thought of it before that, but oh well...)

[jess]

.

[igo2northwestern]

For posterity sake:

1. You can be an accomplice to someone's attempt (You give a gun to person B, and B shoots but misses)
2. Under the MPC language, you are liable under complicity if you attempted to aid.
3. Solicitation can fall under complicity or attempt, so you can be charged for a combo of those at the same time.
4. Most times, conspiracy is charged separately, but under the MPC, conspiracy may be merged in some rare instances.

MPC says that you can only be convicted of one of Conspiracy, Solicitation, and Attempt. But on a law school exam (at least for my prof) you should analyze whether a person could potentially be liable for any of them.

[orm518]

Maybe what your professor meant is that a person is not an accomplice unless his conduct or omission in fact assists in the commission of the offense. AKA there has to be actual assistance. My professor used a lookout as an example. Lookout is told to honk horn for friends who are breaking into a storage unit in order to steal dumb stuff if/when he sees the cops show (State v. Hoselton). Cops show before crime is completed. Lookout honks horn as planned and does his part. However, friends do not hear the honking. Cops arrest friends for attempted burglary. Lookout is not charged with anything because he did not assist with the crime. Other scenario: cops never show so lookout never needs to honk. Lookout is not charged with anything after the fact because he did not assist with the commission of the crime. However, if cops show, lookout honks, friends hear the honk and make a run for it, and cops catch friends, then lookout would be liable for the attempted burglary through accomplice liability.

That all makes sense, but then if there was some showing of an agreed upon plan, which wouldn't be too hard to show given your hypo, couldn't the lookout be then charged with the crime under Pinkerton conspiracy liability?