A client, a former special forces operative, is approached by a criminal organization to participate in a sophisticated bank heist. He attends several planning meetings, helps scout the bank, and assists in acquiring blueprints. However, a week before the planned heist, he has a change of heart, informs the other conspirators he is out, and contacts an anonymous tip line with general information about a potential bank robbery, without revealing specific details about the conspirators or the exact target. Has the operative successfully withdrawn from the conspiracy under common law?
- ANo, because withdrawal from a conspiracy is generally not possible under common law after an overt act has been committed.
- BNo, because his affirmative act to thwart the conspiracy was not specific enough to prevent the crime.
- CYes, because he communicated his withdrawal to the co-conspirators.
- DYes, because he communicated his withdrawal and performed an affirmative act to thwart the conspiracy.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. No, because withdrawal from a conspiracy is generally not possible under common law after an overt act has been committed.
Under common law, once an overt act has been committed in furtherance of the conspiracy (which the operative clearly did by attending meetings, scouting, and acquiring blueprints), withdrawal is generally not possible to escape liability for the conspiracy itself. While modern law (and the Model Penal Code) allows for withdrawal if the withdrawing party communicates it and takes an affirmative step to thwart the conspiracy, common law is much stricter.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. This option discusses the effectiveness of the thwarting act, which is relevant under modern law, but the fundamental issue here is the common law's stance on withdrawal from the conspiracy (not subsequent crimes).
- C. While communication is a step in modern withdrawal, it's insufficient under common law once an overt act occurred.
- D. This describes modern/MPC withdrawal, not common law. Under common law, after an overt act, withdrawal is generally not a defense to the conspiracy charge itself.
Withdrawal from Conspiracy (Common Law)
Under common law, generally, withdrawal from a conspiracy is not possible once an overt act has been committed, meaning liability for the conspiracy itself cannot be avoided.
- Common law is very strict on withdrawal.
- Once an overt act occurs, liability for conspiracy attaches.
- Withdrawal may limit liability for subsequent crimes by co-conspirators, but not for the conspiracy charge itself.
- Modern trend (MPC) allows withdrawal if communicated and an affirmative act to thwart is made.
Memory trick: Conspiracy's a tight ship; leaving is hard, especially at common law.