Ch. 5 Part 2
Ch. 5 Part 2 CJ 341
Popular in Criminal Law
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Criminal Justice
This 2 page Class Notes was uploaded by Nicole Wolfe on Tuesday September 20, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to CJ 341 at University of North Dakota taught by Kristi Venhuizen in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 10 views. For similar materials see Criminal Law in Criminal Justice at University of North Dakota.
Reviews for Ch. 5 Part 2
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/20/16
Conspiracy o Common law – agreement by two or more persons to accomplish a criminal act or to use unlawful means to accomplish a non-criminal objective Unlawful agreement No overt act required Husband and wife were considered one person o Today – defined by statute in all jurisdiction o Actus reus – the agreement Need not be formal or written Simple understanding is sufficient Need not be explicit Can be implied from the acts of the parties Don’t have to join the conspiracy at the same time o Some states require proof of an overt act which is defined as one taken in furtherance of the conspiracy Manifests that the conspiracy is at work o Mens Rea Two of the parties intend to further the unlawful object of the conspiracy Courts differ on the intent requirement o Pinkerton Rule – a member of a conspiracy is liable for all the offenses committed in furtherance of the conspiracy May depend on whether the result was reasonably foreseeable as a natural consequence of the unlawful agreement Conspirators are bound by the acts of their co-conspirators o Unique aspects of conspiracy: Responsible for the acts of the others Hearsay statements of co-conspirators admissible at trial Once formed, the conspiracy continues until consummated, abandoned, or otherwise terminated by some affirmative act o N.D.C.C. 12.1-06-04 o N.D.C.C. 12.1-06-05(3)(b) and (c) o Important to determine: Type of offense or unlawful activity the law proscribes Whether it requires proof of an overt act o No merger Danger that a conspiracy generates is not confined to the substantive offense o Wharton’s Rule – an agreement by two persons to commit a particular crime cannot be prosecuted as a conspiracy when the crime is of such a nature as to necessarily require the participation of two persons for its commission Examples: adultery or bigamy Defenses to conspiracy o Withdrawal from and renunciation of the conspiracy o Take necessary steps to thwart the objective of the conspiracy o Defendant has the burden of establishing the withdrawal Example #1 o The defendant was present during a number of conversations with other charged conspirators. During these meetings, the other defendants planned to commit a burglary. While defendant was present, he did not participate in the planning or the commission of the burglary. o Is the defendant guilty of conspiracy? No. the defendant is not guilty of conspiracy because his mere knowledge of the crime is not enough. There needs to be an agreement to participate in the conspiracy. Example #2 o The victim was walking down the street when she was stopped and restrained by the first defendant. The second defendant took the victim’s wallet from his pocket. o Are the defendants guilty of conspiracy? Yes. The defendants are guilty of conspiracy. The agreement can be implied from the actions of both parties. Criminal facilitation o N.D.C.C. 12.1-06-02 o N.D.C.C. 12.1-06-05 o State v Wright, 470 N.W.2d 594 (N.D. 1991) Attempted rape o State v Keller, 2005 ND 86, 695 N.W.2d 703 o State v Langan, 410 N.W.2d 149 (N.D. 1987) o In the Interest of J.C.S., 1997 ND 126, 565 N.W.2d 759
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'