CONSPIRACY (Prepared by Dean Stanislaus Pulle) Conspiracy is the agreement between two or more people with the specific

intent to commit a social harm (Common Law) or a crime (Modern Law). Example: spell out the specific criminal intent of the conspiracy 1. ABC conspired to commit first degree murder with a deliberated and premeditated intent to kill
2.

ABC conspired to commit bank robbery- they are to steal using fear/force from a person within the bank

1. 2.

SPECIFIC INTENT There must be a specific intent to commit the unlawful object of the conspiracy. The defendants must all have a specific intent to commit the crime. For murder the defendants will be charged with conspiracy to commit first degree murder, therefore all the defendants must have a fully formed intent to kill. People v Swain - conspiracy to commit murder cannot be based on "depraved heart" intent.

AGREEMENT 1. The defendants must all agree upon their common unlawful intent. People v Swain- all the conspirators must have intended to commit the elements of that offense.
2.

The agreement may be expressed or a tacit understanding: where the defendants need not have met or spoken with one another so long as they knew of each other's presence and shared the common unlawful intent. (United States v. Rosado-Fernandez) State v. Hanks - a conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the accused.

SUPPLIER LIABILITY 1. The supplier must have knowledge of the buyers illegal purpose.
2.

The supplier must have specific intent; that is determined by him having a stake in the business. Factors that show suppliers stake in the business: a) The nature and seriousness of the crime. b) Volume of the transaction. c) Nature of the product. d) Duration of supply.

WHARTONS RULE The defendants can not be charged with conspiracy when the nature of the crime as defined requires two people to commit the crime. The Rule applies only when it is impossible under any circumstances to commit the substantive offense without cooperative action. Modernly, it is a judicial presumption to be applied in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary. (United States v. Pavan - "...the substantive offense necessarily requires the participation and cooperation of two persons."

THIRD PERSON EXCEPTION TO WHARTON'S RULE If there is a third person, one more than is needed to commit the crime, then all defendants may be charged with conspiracy. Common law Under the common law when the specific intent and the agreement are present the conspiracy is complete. Modern law - OVERT ACT Under modern law there must be an overt act by any one conspirator to further the conspiratorial intent. PINKERTON RULE The acts of one conspirator in furtherance of and with in the reasonably foreseeable scope of the conspiracy is attributable to all fellow co-conspirators. (Pinkerton v. United States) UNILATERAL THEORY OF CONSPIRACY Under modern law if a defendant has the requisite intent and agrees with another (such as an undercover police officer), who lacks the requisite intent to commit the crime, then the defendant may be charged with conspiracy. DEFENSE OF WITHDRAWAL (Common Law & Modern Law) Defense of withdrawal is available to the target crime if a conspirator effectively and in a timely manner communicates his withdrawal from the conspiracy to all the fellow co-conspirators. DEFENSE OF RENUNCIATION (Modern Law only) Defense of renunciation is available to the conspiracy charge, if the conspirator thwarted the success of the conspiracy (i.e. target crime) under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal intent. RULE OF CONSISTENCY In a conspiracy where all the alleged conspirators during a single trial are acquitted except one, that remaining alleged conspirator cannot be convicted of conspiracy. Marquiz v. People - the rule of consistency is inapplicable where all the alleged coconspirators are not tried in the same proceeding. AIDING AND ABETTING - This is NOT a substantive crime. It is method whereby the aider & abettor can be charged with the crime committed by the principal'. United States v. Loscalzo - "aiding and abetting is not a separate crime." A defendant may be found to have aided and abetted a conspiracy. The defendant may be charged with the same crime committed by the perpetrator, if the defendant aids and abets, with knowledge of the perpetrators criminal purpose and with an intent or purpose either of committing, or of encouraging or facilitating the commission of the offense. (People v. Beeman) INCIDENTAL CRIMES (NON- TARGET CRIMES) When there are incidental crimes to the actual crime the defendants have conspired to commit, defendants may only be charged with the conspiracy to commit the actual and not the incidental crimes. Defendant is responsible for non-target crimes if the non-target crimes are natural and probable consequences of the target crime. (People v. Prettyman)