October 30 Notes and Briefs

October 30 Notes and Briefs - October 30, 2008 E....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
E. Conspiracy 1. General Principles People v. Carter Supreme Court of Michigan, 1982 Conspiracy: a partnership in criminal purposes, a mutual agreement or understanding express or implied between two or more persons to commit a criminal act or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful means. The agreement is somewhat subtle, can be without words. Example: Two men are watching a jewellery store, one nods at another, that’s an agreement. Roots in CL, but now, Statute law. The gist is unlawful agreement and is complete upon formation for the agreement at CL. Under modern jurisdiction you need an overt an overt act, buying a gun may be an overt act. Always look to the scope of conspiracy to figure out what is an overt act. Specific Intent: intent to combine with others and intent to accomplish the illegal objective. Intent to agree and intent that the target offence be committed. Actus Reus: agreement and under modern law, overt act. Solicitation does not merge. Agree to kill someone and one does, does not merge, guilty of conspiracy and homicide. Does not depend upon the accomplishment of the goals of the conspiracy. Notes from the Case: Pinkerton v. United States Supreme Court of US, 1946 Law: The conspiracy was not itself enough to sustain a conviction for the substantive offence even though it was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. Continuous Conspiracy: No evidence of the affirmative action on the part of D which is necessary to establish his withdrawal from it. And so long as the partnership in crime continues the partners act for each other in carrying it forward. It is settled that an overt act of one partner may be the act of all without any new agreement specifically directed to that act. Facts: Brothers, W and D, lived a short distance from one another. They were indicted for violations of the Internal Revenue Code. No evidence to show that D participated directly in the commission of the substantive offences on which his conviction has been sustained, although there was evidence to show that these substantive offences were in fact committed by W in furtherance of the unlawful agreement or conspiracy existing between the brothers. Reasoning: A difference case would arise if the substantive offence committed by one of the conspirators was not in fact done in furtherance of the conspiracy, did not fall within the scope of the unlawful project, or was merely a part of the ramifications of the plan which could not be reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement. This is not the case. Issue: Did D commit conspiracy? Procedure: A single conspiracy of W was charged and proved. D was charged with conspiracy as well. Each substantive offence found was committed pursuant to the conspiracy.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 10/20/2009 for the course CRIM LAW 107 taught by Professor Swedlow during the Fall '08 term at McMaster University.

Page1 / 11

October 30 Notes and Briefs - October 30, 2008 E....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online