• Under common law, a conspiracy was defined as an agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal act.

• Modern statutes take a “unilateral” approach, which permits the conviction of any person who agrees with another to commit a crime.

• There are two parts to the mens rea of conspiracy. First, the defendant must intend to enter into an agreement with one or more others to commit a crime. Second, the defendant must have intent to commit the target offense.

• The actus reus of conspiracy consists of two parts.

First, and most importantly, there must be an agreement to commit a crime. Second, in some jurisdictions the parties to the conspiracy must commit an “overt act” in furtherance of the agreement.

• An abandonment defense may work as something of a defense to charges for subsequent crimes arising from a conspiratorial agreement.

• The withdrawal defense is more widely available for the crime of conspiracy than abandonment.

• Although impossibility rarely comes up in a conspiracy context, it is a possible defense in certain contexts.
• Wharton’s rule provides that a conspiracy cannot occur when two persons are required for the commission of a crime.

Questions:-

1. Compare and contrast conspiracy at common law and under modern-day statutes.
2. Briefly summarize the elements of conspiracy.
3. Explain the issues that pose complications for conspiracy prosecutions.
4. List and define the defenses to a conspiracy charge.