Criminal Law Exam: Inchoate Crimes

Jessica learns that her friend Tom has a plan to rob a bank next week. Over dinner, Jessica suggests several ideas to Tom on how they could successfully execute the robbery. She even goes as far as accompanying Tom to the bank to help him scope out the location. The day before the robbery, Tom decides not to go through with the plan. The bank is not robbed. Discuss whether Jessica could be charged with any inchoate crimes related to her actions in this scenario.

In this hypothetical concerning Jessica's actions, the analysis of potential inchoate crimes revolves around conspiracy and solicitation. Under the inchoate crimes doctrine, conspiracy arises when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and take substantial steps toward its commission, while solicitation occurs when one person encourages another to engage in criminal conduct. **Issue:** The primary legal issues here are whether Jessica can be charged with conspiracy and whether her actions amounted to solicitation. Specifically, did Jessica and Tom form a conspiracy or did she merely solicit him to commit robbery? **Rule:** To establish a conspiracy, the prosecution must prove an agreement between the co-conspirators to commit a crime, along with an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. A conspiracy does not require that the target crime is completed, only that there is intent to commit the crime and an overt act toward that end. For solicitation, the key elements are the encouragement of the crime and the intent that the crime be committed. **Application:** Here, Jessica engaged in planning with Tom, sharing specific ideas and accompanying him to the bank. These actions suggest a level of agreement and planning sufficient to constitute an overt act in support of a conspiracy. While Tom ultimately decided not to proceed with the robbery, the law typically treats the conspiracy as complete once the agreement and the overt act occur. Moreover, Jessica's actions could be interpreted as solicitation as she actively encouraged Tom’s criminal intentions. However, the completeness of the conspiracy is contingent upon the agreement to commit a crime. Since both participants intended to commit the robbery and took substantive steps towards it, even if Tom later backed out, Jessica could still be held liable for conspiring to commit robbery. Additionally, her direct encouragement and assistance could make her liable for solicitation. **Conclusion:** Based on the facts, Jessica can likely be charged with both conspiracy to commit robbery and solicitation. Despite the failure of the plan to culminate in an actual robbery, the sufficiency of the agreement and overt acts displayed by Jessica in preparing for the robbery supports these charges. The policy rationale here serves to deter coordination for criminal activities, even if they do not come to fruition.