MPC § 5.03: Criminal Conspiracy
What does Criminal Conspiracy (Model Penal Code) provide?
Section 5.03 defines criminal conspiracy under the MPC. A person is guilty of conspiracy if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of a crime, they agree with another person that one or more of them will engage in conduct that constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime, or they agree to aid such other person in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime. The MPC requires a true bilateral agreement with respect to purpose, but adopts a unilateral approach to the agreement itself.
Source: Model Penal Code § 5.03
3-day free trial, then $9.99/month. Cancel anytime.
Summary
Section 5.03 defines criminal conspiracy under the MPC. A person is guilty of conspiracy if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of a crime, they agree with another person that one or more of them will engage in conduct that constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime, or they agree to aid such other person in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime. The MPC requires a true bilateral agreement with respect to purpose, but adopts a unilateral approach to the agreement itself.
The MPC's unilateral conspiracy approach means that a person can be guilty of conspiracy even if the other party is feigning agreement (e.g., an undercover officer), is irresponsible or lacks the required mental state, or has been acquitted. This contrasts with the common law bilateral approach, which required a genuine meeting of at least two guilty minds. The MPC focuses on the individual defendant's culpability rather than the mutuality of the agreement.
Section 5.03(5) addresses overt acts: no person may be convicted of conspiracy unless an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy is alleged and proved. However, this requirement does not apply to conspiracies to commit first- or second-degree felonies. Section 5.03(6) provides a renunciation defense: the actor must have thwarted the success of the conspiracy, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation. Section 5.03(3) addresses scope of conspiracy, rejecting the common law rule of Pinkerton liability (where a conspirator is liable for all foreseeable crimes committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy). Under the MPC, conspiracy does not automatically extend liability to substantive crimes committed by co-conspirators.
Key Provisions
6 essential provisions of § 5.03
Conspiracy requires agreement with purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of a crime
Unilateral approach: defendant can be guilty even if the other party is an undercover agent, feigning, or irresponsible
Overt act required for conspiracy convictions except for first- or second-degree felonies
Rejects Pinkerton liability: conspiracy alone does not make a defendant liable for all crimes committed by co-conspirators
Renunciation defense: actor must thwart the success of the conspiracy, manifesting complete and voluntary renunciation
Multiple criminal objectives treated as a single conspiracy if part of the same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship
MPC vs. Common Law
How the MPC approach to criminal conspiracy differs from common law
The MPC departs from common law conspiracy in several major ways. First, the common law required a bilateral agreement (at least two genuinely guilty minds), while the MPC uses a unilateral approach. Second, the common law Pinkerton doctrine held each conspirator liable for all foreseeable crimes committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy — the MPC rejects this, requiring separate complicity analysis for substantive crimes. Third, the common law did not require an overt act for any conspiracy (the agreement itself was the crime), while some modern statutes added an overt act requirement; the MPC requires it for most conspiracies but exempts serious felonies. Fourth, the common law generally did not recognize withdrawal as a defense to conspiracy (only as a limit on future liability), while the MPC allows a renunciation defense. Fifth, the MPC's approach to multiple objectives prevents prosecutors from charging separate conspiracies for each criminal objective of a single agreement.
Exam Relevance
How § 5.03 appears on criminal law exams
Conspiracy is heavily tested and full of exam-worthy issues. Key topics: (1) Unilateral vs. bilateral approach — a fact pattern where the other "conspirator" is an undercover officer reaches different results under MPC vs. common law; (2) Pinkerton liability — the MPC rejects it, so if A and B conspire to rob a bank and B kills a guard, A is not automatically liable for the killing under the MPC (but would be under Pinkerton); (3) Overt act requirement — does the conspiracy to commit a serious felony still require an overt act? (4) Scope and duration of the conspiracy — wheel vs. chain conspiracies; (5) Renunciation — what does it take to thwart the conspiracy? Students should always explicitly state whether they are applying MPC or common law rules and reach separate conclusions under each.
Related Sections
Sections frequently studied alongside § 5.03
More from Article 5 — Inchoate Crimes
Other sections in Article 5