Solicitation is defined as the asking, inducing or enticing another individual to commit a crime.
Under the merger doctrine, the crime of solicitation merges with conspiracy. An individual cannot be guilty of solicitation if the crime is the object of the conspiracy. A person cannot be guilty of both conspiracy and solicitation. If conspiracy is proven solicitation will be merged under both traditional and modern jurisdictions.
Conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more individuals to commit a crime.
Here you would talk about the facts that led you to believe that there was an agreement between the individuals.
Object of the conspiracy
Here is where you would discuss the crimes.
Attempt is defined as having the intent to commit a crime and taking a step beyond mere preparation toward the completion of the crime. There are several tests to determine if an attempt was actually committed.
The Last Act
This is under common law and rejected by almost all jurisdictions as of date. This test says that in order to complete an attempt the individual must have taken the last step necessary for the completion. EX. Firing the gun.
Last Proximate Act
In order to prove attempt under this theory you must show that the individual took the last proximate act in committing the crime. EX. Aiming of the gun.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
Under this test attempt can be proven if it can be shown through the defendants conduct alone. Attempt is only proven if the actions of the defendant are taken without his words and it can be inferred through his actions his subjective intent.
Substantial Step Test
This test proves intent if you can show that the defendant took a substantial step towards the commission of the crime. A substantial step might be not just getting a gun to rob a place but actually going to a bank and trying to rob the place only to find out that they are closed and its impossible.
Under this test attempt may be proven if in fact the defendant took a step that a reasonable person in the same situation may not have taken. EX. Taking a gun to school.
Reasonable Desistance Test
This test is proven if the defendant has passed the point of no return on the crime. Essentially the defendant has already taken all of he necessary steps to the crime and cannot desist.
Defendant must be within dangerous proximity of committing the crime.
The defendant must have control over an indispensible element of the crime. Go to kill A but can’t find A there is no attempt on A.
****** MUST SHOW THE MALICE ITK, OTHERS ARE GENERAL INTENT******
Defense to Attempt
An overt act is an act that is a step towards the commission of a crime. It is not as strong as of a standard as that of attempt. Talk about whether you think that was an overt act.
The Wheel Causation
Here you have a ring leader and a bunch of individuals that are under the ring leader committing the crime. This is only viewed as one single conspiracy if the individuals no of the others existence and know that they have a community of interest. Otherwise it is viewed as multiple conspiracies.
The Chain Causation
Under this there is only one viewed conspiracy if the individuals knew of each others existence. The issue here is whether there was a community of interest. Multiple would be the conspiracy of the drug lord and the middle men and then the middle men and the addict.
The withdrawal of an individual must be communicated to the other parties within the conspiracy. Ex. Driving off and leaving them is a clear form of withdrawal. Withdrawal if proven will absolve the individual from liability of any further acts committed after the individual withdrew. However,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document