Criminal Law · Inchoate Crimes

high frequency

MBE Criminal Law: Inchoate Crimes

A comprehensive overview of inchoate crimes, key rules, and common question patterns on the MBE.

Overview

Inchoate crimes are offenses that involve the preparation or planning of a crime, rather than its completion. The most common types of inchoate crimes include attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy. Inchoate offenses can often be charged even if the corresponding substantive crime was not successfully executed, emphasizing the culpability of the intent and actions taken toward the criminal objective.

The law regarding inchoate crimes varies slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but key principles are universally upheld across MBE examinations. The actor's substantial step towards committing a crime, the solicitation of someone to commit a crime, and the agreements to commit a crime illustrate the criminal intent necessary to incur liability under the inchoate doctrines. Understanding the nuances of these offenses can be pivotal for success on the bar exam, as they frequently form the basis for complex hypotheticals that test an examinee's ability to apply foundational principles of criminal law.

Key Rules
  1. 1. An attempt requires a substantial step toward the commission of a crime.
  2. 2. Solicitation involves urging or encouraging another person to commit a crime.
  3. 3. Conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act.
  4. 4. Withdrawal from conspiracy is permissible if it is communicated and done before the conspiracy is executed.
  5. 5. A person can be convicted of attempt even if the substantive crime is impossible to commit.
  6. 6. Intent is a critical element for all inchoate crimes, necessitating a purpose to commit the underlying offense.
  7. 7. Merely thinking about committing a crime or preparing to commit a crime without taking any substantial steps does not constitute an inchoate crime.
Common Question Patterns
  • Evaluating whether an act constitutes a substantial step towards an attempted crime.
  • Determining liability for solicitation based on the facts presented.
  • Assessing whether an agreement constitutes a conspiracy.
  • Examining defenses for inchoate crimes, such as withdrawal.
  • Identifying distinctions between completed crimes and inchoate crimes.
Practice Questions

1. Alice discusses with Bob their plan to rob a bank and they purchase masks and gloves. Before they execute the plan, Bob decides to back out. Can Alice be charged with conspiracy?

A. A) Yes, because they had an agreement.(Correct)

B. B) No, because Bob withdrew before the crime was committed.

C. C) Yes, because preparatory acts were taken.

D. D) No, because Alice acted alone after Bob's withdrawal.

Explanation: Alice can be charged with conspiracy because the conspiracy was formed with mutual agreement and even though Bob withdrew, it does not negate Alice's liability.

2. David attempts to steal a car, but finds it has an anti-theft device that he cannot bypass. His attempt to steal the car fails. Can he be charged with attempted theft?

A. A) No, because the theft was impossible.

B. B) Yes, because he took substantial steps toward committing the theft.(Correct)

C. C) No, because he did not succeed.

D. D) Yes, but only if he intended to steal.

Explanation: David can be charged with attempted theft because he took a substantial step toward committing the crime despite the impossibility of successfully stealing the car.

3. Eve offered Frank $5,000 to kill her business partner. Frank informs the police instead. Can Eve be convicted of solicitation?

A. A) Yes, due to the clear offer.(Correct)

B. B) No, because Frank did not accept the offer.

C. C) Yes, but only if the police intervened before Frank acted.

D. D) No, because the crime was not executed.

Explanation: Eve can be convicted of solicitation because she attempted to incite another to commit a crime, regardless of whether Frank accepted the offer or acted upon it.

4. Tom and Jerry agree to commit a burglary, but before entering the premises, Tom realizes he does not want to go through with it. He tells Jerry he is backing out. Can Tom avoid conspiracy charges?

A. A) No, the agreement alone is sufficient for conspiracy.

B. B) Yes, if he communicates his withdrawal before the crime.(Correct)

C. C) Yes, because he had a change of heart.

D. D) No, if Jerry was serious about committing the crime.

Explanation: Tom can avoid conspiracy charges by effectively communicating his withdrawal before any act toward the crime is executed, thus negating the agreement.

5. If a person prepares materials to commit a crime but never completes any act towards carrying it out, can they still be charged with an inchoate crime?

A. A) No, preparation alone does not constitute an attempt.

B. B) Yes, if they had clear intent to commit the crime.(Correct)

C. C) Yes, but only if they could have completed the crime.

D. D) No, unless the crime was fully planned.

Explanation: The person can still be charged with an inchoate crime if they had the intent to commit the crime and took substantial preparatory steps.

Test-Taking Tips
  • Carefully analyze fact patterns for indications of intent and substantial steps.
  • Be familiar with the definitions and elements of each inchoate crime.
  • Pay close attention to the nuances of legal terms like 'withdrawal' and 'agreement'.
  • Practice distinguishing between attempts, solicitation, and conspiracy through hypothetical scenarios.
  • Review relevant case law that illustrates the principles of inchoate offenses.

Master MBE Topics with Briefly

Get AI-powered study tools, practice questions, and comprehensive legal resources.