Unraveling the Intricacies of Criminal Conspiracy

Unraveling the Intricacies of Criminal Conspiracy

Table of Contents:

1. Introduction
2. Understanding Conspiracy at Common Law
3. Elements of Conspiracy at Common Law
   • 3.1. Agreement
   • 3.2. Intent
   • 3.3. Overt Act
4. Conspiracy under the Model Penal Code
   • 4.1. Unilateral Approach
   • 4.2. Conscious Object
5. Special Issues in Conspiracy
   • 5.1. The Wharton Rule
   • 5.2. The Merger Doctrine
6. Criminal Liability and Natural and Probable Consequences
7. Withdrawal from Conspiracy
   • 7.1. Common Law Perspective
   • 7.2. Model Penal Code Approach
8. Conclusion
9. Assessment

Introduction

In the realm of criminal law, conspiracy is a topic of great importance. It involves a group of individuals coming together to plan and execute a criminal act. In this article, we will explore the concept of conspiracy, looking at its history, elements, and various legal perspectives. We will delve into the differences between conspiracy at common law and the approach taken by the Model Penal Code. Furthermore, we will discuss special issues related to conspiracy, such as the Wharton Rule and the merger doctrine. Lastly, we will examine the concept of withdrawal from conspiracy and its implications. So, let's begin our journey into the fascinating world of conspiracy and common law.

Understanding Conspiracy at Common Law

Conspiracy at common law refers to an agreement between two or more individuals to commit a criminal or unlawful act. The agreement is characterized by an intent to enter into the agreement and the intent to achieve the objective of the agreement. In some jurisdictions, an overt act is also required to prove conspiracy. This overt act can be almost anything done in furtherance of the conspiracy. It could involve acquiring resources, gathering accomplices, or any action that supports the plan. The agreement itself doesn't have to be explicit; a nod, a wink, or a simple "yes" can suffice. However, all parties involved must have the intent to agree and the intent to commit the target offense.

Elements of Conspiracy at Common Law

1. Agreement

   For a conspiracy to exist, there must be an agreement between two or more persons. This agreement can be implicit and doesn't require formal documentation but should demonstrate a meeting of the minds. However, it's crucial to note that a mere agreement is not sufficient to establish conspiracy; there must also be the intent to commit the crime.

2. Intent

   Intent plays a significant role in establishing conspiracy. Each person involved must have the intent to agree and the intent to complete the target offense. In other words, they should purposefully come together with the shared objective of committing the crime. Without these dual intents, there can be no conspiracy.

3. Overt Act

   In some jurisdictions, an overt act is required to prove conspiracy. This act can be any action taken in furtherance of the conspiracy, indicating a substantial step towards the commission of the crime. It could be acquiring resources, gathering information, or engaging in activities that support the plan. However, it's important to note that not all jurisdictions require an overt act to establish conspiracy.

Conspiracy under the Model Penal Code

The Model Penal Code takes a different approach to conspiracy compared to common law. According to the Model Penal Code, a person is guilty of conspiracy if they agree with another person to commit a crime with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission. Under this approach, even a single person can be guilty of conspiracy, irrespective of the other party's consent or participation. The key element here is the defendant's agreement to commit the crime.

The Model Penal Code also introduces the concept of conscious object. The defendant must have a conscious object to bring about the prohibited result or cause the prohibited conduct to occur. This means that the conspirator must have a clear intention to achieve the desired outcome, making their role in the conspiracy more significant.

Special Issues in Conspiracy

1. The Wharton Rule

   The Wharton Rule stipulates that if a crime requires two participants, there can be no conspiracy between those two participants. However, if a third person is involved in the agreement, then conspiracy can be established. For example, adultery, dueling, and the sale of contraband all require the participation of two people. Therefore, the two participants themselves cannot be charged with conspiracy. However, if a third person enters into the agreement, conspiracy charges become feasible.

2. The Merger Doctrine

   At common law, conspiracy did not merge with the target offense, meaning that a person could be convicted of both conspiracy and the actual crime. However, under the Model Penal Code, conspiracy merges with the target offense. This means that while both charges may be brought against the conspirators, they can only be convicted of either conspiracy or the target offense, but not both.

Criminal Liability and Natural and Probable Consequences

Conspirators at common law are held liable not only for the target offense but also for all other crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. This includes crimes that are a natural and probable consequence of the conspiracy, crimes that are foreseeable from the conspiracy. For instance, if two individuals conspire to commit a bank robbery, and during the robbery, one of them rapes a teller, both conspirators would be responsible for the bank robbery and any other crimes committed during its execution.

Withdrawal from Conspiracy

1. Common Law Perspective

   At common law, withdrawal from conspiracy was not recognized as a defense once the agreement and all essential elements of conspiracy were established. Even if a conspirator attempted to withdraw, they would still be held liable for the conspiracy and any subsequent crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, the natural and probable consequence doctrine limited the conspirator's ongoing criminal liability.

2. Model Penal Code Approach

   The Model Penal Code allows for withdrawal from conspiracy and recognizes it as an affirmative defense. The withdrawing conspirator must demonstrate a complete and voluntary renunciation of their criminal intent while there is still ample opportunity for all members of the conspiracy to abandon their plans. If successfully proven, withdrawal can limit the withdrawing conspirator's further criminal liability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, conspiracy is a fascinating aspect of criminal law that involves the agreement between individuals to carry out criminal acts. Understanding the elements, nuances, and legal perspectives surrounding conspiracy is crucial in comprehending its implications. Whether at common law or under the Model Penal Code, conspiracy carries significant criminal liability. However, elements such as intent, overt acts, withdrawal, and the natural and probable consequence doctrine shape the nature and extent of this liability. By exploring the intricacies of conspiracy, we gain a deeper insight into the complex world of criminal law.

Assessment

To test your understanding of conspiracy and its various aspects, head to the Twin site and complete the assessment for Video Presentation Number 11.

Highlights:

• Understanding the concept of conspiracy in criminal law.
• Exploring the differences between conspiracy at common law and under the Model Penal Code.
• Examining the elements of conspiracy, including agreement, intent, and overt acts.
• Discussing special issues such as the Wharton Rule and the merger doctrine.
• Understanding criminal liability and the natural and probable consequence doctrine.
• Analyzing withdrawal from conspiracy and its implications.
• Gaining insights into the complex nature of conspiracy in criminal law.

FAQ:

Q1: What is conspiracy under common law?

A1: Conspiracy under common law refers to an agreement between two or more individuals to commit a criminal or unlawful act, with each party having the intent to agree and the intent to achieve the objective of the agreement.

Q2: Does conspiracy require an overt act?

A2: In some jurisdictions, an overt act is required to prove conspiracy. However, not all jurisdictions have this requirement.

Q3: Can a single person be guilty of conspiracy under the Model Penal Code?

A3: Yes, the Model Penal Code allows a single person to be guilty of conspiracy if they agree with another person to commit a crime.

Q4: What is the Wharton Rule?

A4: The Wharton Rule states that if a crime requires the participation of two individuals, those two individuals themselves cannot be charged with conspiracy. However, if a third person is involved, conspiracy charges become possible.

Q5: Does conspiracy merge with the target offense under the Model Penal Code?

A5: Yes, under the Model Penal Code, conspiracy merges with the target offense. This means that a person can be charged with both conspiracy and the target offense but can only be convicted of one.

Q6: Is withdrawal from conspiracy recognized as a defense?

A6: At common law, withdrawal from conspiracy was not recognized as a defense. However, the Model Penal Code allows for withdrawal and considers it an affirmative defense.

Q7: What is the natural and probable consequence doctrine?

A7: The natural and probable consequence doctrine holds conspirators liable not only for the target offense but also for all other crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, which are foreseeable from the conspiracy.