![]() However, if Fred drives the getaway car to the bank and parks it outside the bank so that Barney will have a means of escape, both Fred and Barney would immediately be guilty of conspiracy. Without more than just an agreement, most jurisdictions today would not hold Fred or Barney liable for conspiracy. For example:įred and Barney agree to rob the First National Bank of Bedrock. This overt act need not take place at the time or location of the conspiracy. However, most jurisdictions today also require that there must have been at least one "overt act" taken in furtherance of the conspiracy by at least one of the conspirators for there to have been a chargeable criminal conspiracy. 2d 781 (1952).Īs far as the actus reus requirement for conspiracy is concerned, at common law, a conspiracy is completed as soon as an agreement between one or more people is made. However, other jurisdictions hold that, since ignorance of the law is generally not a defense to a criminal charge, conspiracy is no exception and a defendant can be guilty of a conspiracy to commit an act even though he did not know that the act was a crime. Some jurisdictions do not criminalize a conspiracy unless the defendant knew that the object of the conspiracy was a crime. There is some debate as to whether or not a defendant can be convicted for conspiracy if he did not know that what he was conspiring to do was illegal. Therefore, circumstantial evidence is allowed, and indeed is prevalent, when trying to prove the state of mind of a defendant. This allowance is, of course necessary, as it would be almost impossible to actually show what was going through the defendant's mind at any given time. In other words, the prosecution can prove intent by demonstrating that the defendant was going to benefit, either financially or otherwise, if the object of the conspiracy was successfully carried out. Please note that, many times, the prosecution will prove the requisite intent by showing that the defendant had a stake in the venture he was planning with his co-conspirators. In this situation, Clay is not guilty of conspiracy because, although he intended to agree with Rubin, he did not intend to accomplish the objective of the conspiracy when he made the agreement. Clay agrees to help Rubin but, in his mind, Clay plans on turning Rubin in to the police before the robbery actually takes place. Rubin asks Clay if he will work with Rubin to rob the First National Bank of Hollywood. In other words, in order for the men’s rea requirement to be satisfied, the defendant must intend to form an agreement with others to commit a crime and, at the time the defendant made the agreement, he must have intended to do what he would need to do in order to bring about the objective of the conspiracy (ie. The second prong is that the defendant must have intended to accomplish the objective of the conspiracy when he entered into the agreement. ![]() The first prong is that the defendant must have actually intended to agree to commit a crime. The first requirement is the men’s rea requirement which actually has two prongs. However, there are several requirements that must be met in order for a defendant to have actually committed the crime of conspiracy. In its most basic sense, a conspiracy is simply an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. An agreement between two or more people to commit a criminal act.Īn act taken by one of the parties of a conspiracy in furtherance of one or more of the criminal objectives of the conspiracy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |