Top Law Schools

In furtherance of a conspiracy isn't the same as foreseeable, right?

For instance, A and B agreed to and went to rob a store. A pointed a gun at the cashier and demanded money from the cashier, while B held the door to help A get away. B is liable for armed robbery even in a jurisdiction that rejects Pinkerton, right?

On the other hand, if the cashier insults A while handing over cash and A shoots the cashier dead, B's not liable for murder of the cashier in a jurisdiction that rejects Pinkerton (since shooting the cashier wasn't in furtherance of the agreed upon crime of robbery), right?

If the cashier insults A while handing over cash and A shoots the cashier dead, B's is liable for murder of the cashier in a jurisdiction that adopts Pinkerton (since shooting the cashier was foreseeable), right?

Take my answer for what its worth, maybe some other posters will correct me if I am wrong.
Under Pinkerton,I always thought that "in furtherance of the crime" is the same thing as reasonably foreseeable. It is just a way for courts to determine whether the act that the co-conspirator did was in furtherance of the crime. Such that it is in furtherance of the crime if it is reasonably foreseeable.

Hypo 1: Yes under Pinkerton and Yes under MPC if I am right about MPC below.
Hypo 2: Under Pinkerton, B would be liable. Other jurisdictions such as NY who uses the MPC would only make it guilty if there is evidence of accomplice liability. I am actually not sure if you can charge B under accomplice liability because his purpose for crime to succeed is the robbery, not murder. So I would think that under MPC, B would not be liable under the accomplice theory and therefore not under the conspiracy theory.. Someone correct me if i am wrong.

Hypo 3: Yes

joetheplumber wrote:Take my answer for what its worth, maybe some other posters will correct me if I am wrong.
Under Pinkerton,I always thought that "in furtherance of the crime" is the same thing as reasonably foreseeable. It is just a way for courts to determine whether the act that the co-conspirator did was in furtherance of the crime. Such that it is in furtherance of the crime if it is reasonably foreseeable.

Hypo 1: Yes under Pinkerton and Yes under MPC if I am right about MPC below.
Hypo 2: Under Pinkerton, B would be liable. Other jurisdictions such as NY who uses the MPC would only make it guilty if there is evidence of accomplice liability. I am actually not sure if you can charge B under accomplice liability because his purpose for crime to succeed is the robbery, not murder. So I would think that under MPC, B would not be liable under the accomplice theory and therefore not under the conspiracy theory.. Someone correct me if i am wrong.

Hypo 3: Yes

That is what we were taught in my CrimLaw class as well. To just remember that in furtherance = reasonably foreseeable. I am not sure if this is 100% accurate in every situation, or if it is just an easy way for us to remember the scope of potential liability since that is a common limitation on the scope of liability.