8/2/2019 Crim Law Table

1/1

1Issue Attempt Conspiracy Solicitation Accomplice

Mental State Specific intent

(can infer)

Specific intent to commit

a crime (a felony in TX)

and intent to agree.

Supplier with specific

intent is a coconspirator;

intent may be inferred. In

some jurisdictions,knowledge of crime is

sufficient.

Specific intent to

cause crime (1st

degree or capital

felony in TX)

Specific intent to promote or assist

the commission of the offense (TPC

7.02a2)

Act

Requirement

More than mere

preparation.

Jurisdictions use

varying degrees

of participation.

Agreement + overt act

(MPC jurisdictions).

(TPC 15.02a May infer

agreement) Traditional

view No act required

beyond agreement

Requests,

commands, or

attempts to induce

another (TPC

15.03a); ie, the

solicitation is the

act

Solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or

attempts to aid (TPC 7.02a2), or an

omission if legal duty exists

Factual Imposs. Not a defense Not a defense Not a defense Not a defense

Legal Imposs. Maj. Defense

MPC No

defense

Maj. No defense

Min. Defense

Not ordinarily a

defense

Not directly a defense, but always a

defense if no actual crime is

committed.

Crime Complete Not a defense

usually (TPC15.01c). Def. can

be charged with

attempt or

completed

crime, but notboth

Not a defense (TPC

15.02c4)

Not a defense (TPC

15.03c4)

N/A

Withdrawal Affirmativedefense if crime

prevented - TPC

15.04 Not a

defense at

common law

Affirmative defense ifcrime was prevented

(15.04)

Affirmativedefense if crime

was prevented

(15.04)

No express defense for withdrawal inTX (does exist elsewhere), but:

1. If D prevents the crime, D cant

be a party to completed offense;

2. TPC 15.04 applies to attempt

Convict w/

Object Offense?

No, its

either/or. An

attempt is lesser

included offense

of greater

(same offense)

- doublejeopardy

Majority Yes (includes

federal and probably TX

but no specific TX statute)

MPC - No

Usually, yes,

unless its lesser

included offense.

(As for accomplice,

maybe. Consider

constitutional

limits doublejeopardy.)

N/A

Convict w/Other

Inchoates?

No (TPC 15.05) No (TPC 15.05) No (TPC 15.05) Maybe. But consider whether one islesser included offense of the other.

In addition,consider:

1. Unilateral v. bilateral

(TX bilateral, butunilateral language)

2. Plurality and otherlimitations (Wharton,Gebardi)

3. Scope parties object

4. No Defense

provisions - (15.02c)

1. No Defense

(TPC 15.03c)2. Corroboration

(TPC 15.03b)

3. Attempt to

induce is

sufficient in

TX

1. No Defense (7.03)

2. Mere presence not enough.3. Accomplice and principal may

be convicted of different crimes.

4. 7.02b Conspirators may be

parties if collateral felony is

foreseeable and in furtherance

of object crime.