solicitation and conspiracy
MPC conspiracy
(1) Definition of Conspiracy. A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he: (a) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or (b) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime. (5) Overt Act. No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime, other than a felony of the first or second degree, unless an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy is alleged and proved to have been done by him or by a person with whom he conspired. (6) Renunciation of Criminal Purpose. It is an affirmative defense that the actor, after conspiring to commit a crime, thwarted the success of the conspiracy, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.
MPC - solicitation
(1) Definition of Solicitation. A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime or which would establish his complicity in its commission or attempted commission. (2) Uncommunicated Solicitation. It is immaterial under Subsection (1) of this Section that the actor fails to communicate with the person he solicits to commit a crime if his conduct was designed to effect such communication. (3) Renunciation of Criminal Purpose. It is an affirmative defense that the actor, after soliciting another person to commit a crime, persuaded him not to do so or otherwise prevented the commission of the crime, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.
Pinkerton
2 brothers conspired to violate tax law on moonshine liquor; one brother (D) is in jail and the other (W) is making the moonshine and smuggling it; W gets caught and both brothers get charged with conspiracy and all the other crimes committed; jailed brother protests to being charged with his brother's crimes; ct says everything that W did was in furtherance of the objective of the crime D is responsible for all the crimes W did b/c it was a partnership (in for the ups and downs- responsible for them)
California: conspiracy
2+ ppl conspiring to commit a crime or any act injurious to the public health, morals, or the due administration of the laws SCOTUS has called into question conspiracy statutes that prosecute conspiracies against public morals (a) If two or more persons conspire: (1) To commit any crime. (2) Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any crime, or to procure another to be charged or arrested for any crime. (3) Falsely to move or maintain any suit, action, or proceeding. (4) To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by any means which are in themselves criminal, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses or by false promises with fraudulent intent not to perform those promises. (5) To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws. (6) To commit any crime against the person of the President or Vice President of the United States, the Governor of any state or territory, any United States justice or judge, or the secretary of any of the executive departments of the United States.
US v Feola
Can be convicted for assaulting a fed officer without knowing that they are a fed officer, Conspiracy charge does not req knowledge of the victim's official status
SCOTUS - 2 types of conspiracy;
Chain of conspiracy (drug trafficking - many steps: buying drugs wholesale → import→ distributor → sells on the street). SCOTUS said you can charge everyone in chain conspiracy. Everyone is subject to Pinkerton/foreseeable consequence liability. Can instruct that people in the conspiracy must have known that others existed, so are liable for one another's actions. Some jurisdictions say people selling on the street are not included in chain conspiracy SCOTUS: need to prove that it is one agreement to charge chain together. Otherwise, have to charge a few counts of conspiracy. ---- Wheel conspiracy Guy in middle named K(adiekos) who is a banker who has figured out an easy way to falsify loan info to defraud the gov and reaches an agreement with gov insider to process them in exchange for kickbacks. Then makes the agreement with more insiders. Can you charge this as one conspiracy or many conspiracies? People on outside want many conspiracies b/c will lessen their accountability; K wants single conspiracy, b/c does not want multiple counts against him. SCOTUS says wheel needs a rim or it doesn't work. So, if people on rim know eachother or that other people exist, can charge it as one conspiracy --prosecutor needs proof of this to charge as one, otherwise should do multiple trials.
People v Sissleman
Conspired with an undercover agent; said he should have gotten a jury instruction on renunciation b/c he took steps to thwart the plan, even though undercover agent wouldn't have done it anyway Must show a transformation of character; might not have to actually thwart, but just attempt and there be no crime; doesn't have to be THE reason Wanted defense of repudiation Gov: can't get that jury instruction b/c no meeting of the minds b/c conspiring with an undercover cop Ct: D deserves jury instruction
Accacio
Cop who agrees with a body shop to recommend the shop to accident victims in exchange for kickback Language of statute - need to take property from another Body shop said that they did not agree to take property from another b/c it was their property, the money, that was what the cop took Ct says no. cop was taking property from another and body shop conspired, still.
CL - solicitation
Elements: For solicitation: Encouraging, requesting or advising, another person to commit the acts constituting that crime; and With the intent or purpose (Mens Rea) that the other person commit the acts. (This does not require the solicited person actually commit the crime.) Key Requirements: Communication: Some states seem to require speaking to a specific person, but can be broadly defined. Required Proof of Communication: Traditional Common Law rules required that the solicitation was actually communicated to the solicited person. Felonies: Common Law made it a crime to solicit felonies. Punishment and Defense: Punishment: Generally treated as a misdemeanor even if the target offense was a felony. No Renunciation: D's cannot renounce solicitation
Group shared objective is more dangerous and likely to → crime than solo planning
Harder to prove conspiracy if crime doesn't actually happen Doesn't merge, though solicitation and attempt do Coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule - can use hearsay - admissible in ct Can prosecute conspiracy in any location in which any one conspirator commits an overt act Can try all conspirators together. Can use evidence against all of the conspirators Can extend the statute of limitations by every act of furthering the conspiracy. Can say part of conspiracy is keeping it secret, so then SoL runs until they are caught and secret is broken (have to prove they intended to keep it secret, but that's not hard to do) If you can convince judge that conspiracy began when conspirators firsst met, can bring in evidence of all bad acts in that time
People v Lauria
Lauria ran an answering service that took messages for you when you were away from your landline (before message machines); L's business answered the calls for prostitutes; undercover policewoman pretends to be prostitute who used the answering service; made lear she was a prostitute; L charged with conspiracy to commit prostitution; he took their money in exchange for taking their messages; Required mens rea for conspiracy = must know AND have intent to further (aka purpose) Falcone: conspiracy to manufacture illegal substance, but all the materials were legal. The problem was direct sales. Purpose was the operative element. L doesn't care what his customers do, so no intent; enough for a defense b/c prositution is a misdemeanor, so lower bar for defense
Williams v us
Officers taking kickbacks for not enforcing liquor laws; police said they were all acting independently; ct said that even though no record of conspiratoriual communication, too big of a coincidence to not have been a conspiracy; clear that conspiracy was acting Some jurisdictions say there must be an overt act - anything that furthers a conspiracy in any small or big way - can be easily met (CL never required an overt act) - worthless technicality - never an impediment If a jurisdiction res an overt act in the SoL and there is none in the SoL, then can't prosecute - Yates (Little says prosecutor is too stupid to say overt act of keeping crime a secret)
What's the difference between Quentin and Schleifer?
Schleifer was speaking to a specific group of people whereas Quentin was giving out the pamphlet to a ton of people.
Modern Statutes - solicitation
Statutes tend to limit liability to situations where the D encouraged one of a list of particular crimes specified in the statute. CA punishes only the solicitation of certain crimes such as: bribery, murder, robbery, grand theft, carjacking, burglary, receiving stolen property, extortion, rape. MPC by contrast, would punish the solicitation of any crime.
CA conspiracy punishments
They are punishable as follows: When they conspire to commit any crime against the person of any official specified in paragraph (6), they are guilty of a felony and are punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for five, seven, or nine years. When they conspire to commit any other felony, they shall be punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of that felony.... When they conspire to do any of the other acts described in this section, they shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.... All cases of conspiracy may be prosecuted and tried in the superior court of any county in which any overt act tending to effect the conspiracy shall be done. (b) Upon a trial for conspiracy, in a case where an overt act is necessary to constitute the offense, the defendant cannot be convicted unless one or more overt acts are expressly alleged in the indictment or information, nor unless one of the acts alleged is proved; but other overt acts not alleged may be given in evidence.
CL conspiracy
Unilateral v bilateral - common law had bilateral (meeting of the minds) once you have taken a substantial step to an incohate offense, can't go back. No defenses of repudiation or withdrawal. Has been abandoned in most jurisdictions. no meeting of the minds w/ undercover cop (minority opinion)
Pinkerton Liability
all coconspirators can be convicted of conspiracy, target offense, AND any other crime that any coconspirator commits in the furtherance of the plan to commit the crime and was a foreseeable consequence. Only way to cut yourself off is exit the conspiracy and then everything they do after you leave is not your responsibility. -Withdrawal - cut off responsibility for everything after, but are still liable for the conspiracy while you were a part of it. Have to communicate to coconspirators that you are withdrawing. -Renunciation - (can communicate to your colleagues that you're out and then) prevent the crime (or go to the police in time for them to prevent it)
Modern Law Conspiract
dominant view is unilateral (it only matters if one person thinks that they are conspiring). Don't need meeting of the minds. In most jurisdictions: can repudiate or withdraw Most jurisdictions need you to prevent the crime or go to the police with enough time for them to prevent it, for you to have that defense
Wharton's rule
no conspiracy if the crime takes 2 to commit (e.g. prostitution) Theorist's common law rule that is eliminated from fed prosecution
People v. Quentin
subversive brochure about bomb or drug making, Court held there cannot be a general solicitation to a large indefinable group. Not guilty.
State v. Schleifer
union leader urged assembly to attack scabs and this was directed to each person in the meeting. Guilty.