Conspiracy

[resipsacrap]

I'm quite confused about this particular aspect of conspiracy: when you have 2 people who are charged with the crime and one of them is acquitted, does it necessarily mean the other must be acquitted? I've run across this in a couple of multiple choice questions and I'm sorta confused. I thought I remember the PMBR lecture say that at common law

Comments

[lawgeekgurl]

I think unless the other person is the spouse or "victim" of the crime (as in, two people required to commit the crime of statutory rape, and the other is the underage individual), any person can be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime even if the other person isn't convicted, and even if circumstances exist that would make the actual commission of the crime impossible. I think what you're thinking of is the Wharton Rule, which may be the rule in some states still

[resipsacrap]

Thanks, CB. I hate crim law sometimes!

[kampongchicken]

Does this help?

"It seems to have been an unbroken rule at common law, with cases on the point dating as early as A.D. 1410, that, when only two are charged with a conspiracy, and one of them is acquitted, the conviction of the other is void." DeLaney v. State (1932) 51 SW 2d 485, 487

Emphasis added to draw your attention to the point.

[kampongchicken]

Thanks, that helps.

[co_techie]

This is the rule as I understood it:

1. If one D was acquitted on conspiracy, then other must be acquitted too because there can be no conspiracy with only one defendant.

2. If one D plead down to a lesser charge (instead of conspiracy) or was nolle prosequi - anything but acquitted on the merits - then the other D can be convicted of conspiracy.

There is also the old CL rule (Wharton rule) that said if it is a conspiracy to do an act that requires 2 ppl to commit the act e.g. dueling ... then no conspiracy unless there is a 3rd person involved.

[resipsacrap]

Clarified. Thanks a bunch!

[resipsacrap]

ok, so I read more about this and the book says most courts follow the rule where if all parties to a conspiracy are acquitted, the remaining solo D can't be found guilty of the conspiracy. But it goes on to say that, under the Model Penal Code rule that D can still be convicted. Do you know when and how we will know which of the 2 approaches to follow on the multistate portion of the exam? I take it the former approach is the common law approach and so unless on the MBE section we are told the jurisdiction follows the MPC, we go with the common law way?

[co_techie]

You got it! MBE follows majority rule (which happens to be the CL one in this case) by default, only if the call of the question says MPC, then apply that odd rule. :)