Loading The VR School
Loading The VR School
This week examines inchoate (incomplete) crimes — attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation. These offenses punish criminal intent even before the target crime is completed. Attempt requires a substantial step toward completion; conspiracy requires an agreement plus (in most jurisdictions) an overt act; solicitation requires requesting or encouraging another to commit a crime. The central analytical challenge is determining when preparatory conduct crosses the line into punishable criminal activity.
Inchoate crimes punish conduct directed toward — but falling short of — a completed offense. They reflect the law's judgment that criminal intent coupled with action toward its realization justifies punishment even before harm occurs.
Policy rationale: (1) Prevent harm before it occurs; (2) Deter criminal planning; (3) Incapacitate dangerous persons; (4) Punish demonstrated criminal purpose
| Test | Standard | Focus | |------|----------|-------| | Substantial step (MPC/majority) | Act strongly corroborative of criminal purpose | Defendant's dangerousness | | Dangerous proximity (common law) | How close was defendant to completing the crime? | Proximity to completion | | Last act (traditional) | Has defendant done everything necessary except the final act? | What remains to be done | | Unequivocality/res ipsa | Would the act itself reveal criminal purpose to an observer? | Objective interpretation |
| Type | Definition | Defense? | |------|-----------|---------| | Factual | The crime was impossible due to facts unknown to defendant (pocket was empty, victim already dead, substance was fake drugs) | NOT a defense | | Legal | What defendant intended to do would not be a crime even if completed exactly as planned | IS a defense (rare) | | Inherent | Method could never succeed (voodoo to kill someone) | Split — most say not a defense |
| Crime | Merges? | |-------|---------| | Attempt + completed crime | YES — convicted only of completed crime | | Solicitation + conspiracy | YES — solicitation merges into conspiracy | | Solicitation + completed crime | YES — solicitation merges | | Conspiracy + completed crime | NO — convicted of BOTH | | Attempt + conspiracy | NO — separate offenses |
Why conspiracy doesn't merge: Conspiracy punishes the agreement itself — the ongoing danger of the group — not merely the attempt or completion of the target crime.
Inchoate offenses are frequently tested on the Baby Bar: - Attempt issues appear when the fact pattern shows an interrupted crime - Conspiracy + Pinkerton liability is a favorite for multi-defendant scenarios - The specific intent requirement for attempt is a classic trap (especially with felony murder) - Impossibility defenses are regularly tested in MBE format
The statutes SofAI ties to this topic. Use them as your IRAC rule block, then verify the current text on the official leginfo link.
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
Exam hook: Build the homicide analysis on the ladder: §187 murder → §188 malice → §189 degrees/felony murder → §192 manslaughter.
Malice can be express (a deliberate intent to kill) or implied (no considerable provocation, or a killing showing an abandoned and malignant heart).
First-degree murder includes willful, deliberate, premeditated killings and killings during certain felonies; all other murder is second degree.
Manslaughter is an unlawful killing without malice — voluntary (heat of passion), involuntary, or vehicular.
Exam hook: Heat of passion and imperfect self-defense reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter by negating malice.
Inchoate offenses appear regularly on the Baby Bar. Attempt's specific intent requirement is a key exam trap — remember that attempted depraved-heart murder is impossible (attempt always requires specific intent). Conspiracy + Pinkerton liability is commonly tested through multi-defendant fact patterns. The impossibility distinction (factual = no defense; legal = defense) is a classic MBE question.