the most frequently charged of the inchoate crimesan effort to accomplish a particular purposea failure to accomplish what one intendedThe Act Requirementcontemplates an overt act that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of an offenseMPC distinguishes preparatory conduct from an attemptmeme preparatory acts of planning or arranging means to commit a crimethe act must constitute a substantial step toward the commission of substantive offenseactor’s conduct must be “within dangerous proximity to success”The Requisite Criminal Intentdefendant must have had a specific intent to commit the intended offensethe target crimecourts require at least the level of intent that must be established in proof of the target crimeAttempts in Relation to Substantive Crimeswhen a criminal attempt completes a substantive crime, the attempt usually merges into the target offensethere can be no attempt to commit certain crimes because some substantive offenses by definition embrace an attemptDefenses to the Crime of Attemptlegal impossibility is a defense to the crime of attempt but factual impossibility is notdefense to the crime of attempt if the defendant abandons an attempt to commit an offense or otherwise prevents its consummationabandonment must to wholly voluntarycannot be the result of any outside causea person who counseled, incited, or solicited another to commit either a felony or a misdemeanor involving breach of the peaceEnglish common lawa person who solicited another to commit a crime was guilty of solicitation even if the crime counseled, incited, or solicited was not committedThe Act Requirementthe request, command, or enticement constitutes the actus reus required for solicitationcommission of the crime of solicitation does not require direct solicitation of another; it may be perpetrated through an intermediaryIs an Uncommunicated Solicitation an Offense?courts have been reluctant to uphold a conviction of solicitation where there has been no communication of the solicitation to the intended soliciteeIs an Uncommunicated Solicitation an Offense?courts have been reluctant to uphold a conviction of solicitation where there has been no communication of the solicitation to the intended soliciteeThe Requisite Criminal Intentthe solicitor must have specifically intended to induce or entice the person solicited to commit the target offensemust have had the requisite intent for the crime solicitedSolicitation Distinguished from Other Inchoate Crimesthe solicitation of another, assuming neither the solicitor nor solicitee proximately acts towards the crime’s commission, cannot be held for an attemptif the crime solicited is committed or attempted by the solicitee, then the offense of solicitation ordinarily merges into the target crimesolicitation is distinguished from conspiracy because conspiracy requires an agreementDefenses to the Crime of Solicitationthe fact that the solicitor countermands the solicitation is not a defense to the crime of solicitationnot a defense if it was impossible for the person solicited to commit the crimea complete and voluntary renunciation of the accused’s criminal purpose is a defense to a charge of solicitationConspiracy:consisted of an agreement by two or more persons to accomplish a criminal act or to unlawful means to accomplish a noncriminal objectiveno overt act is requiredEnglish common lawregarded husband and wife as one person for most purposescourts have recently viewed spouses as separate identitiesdefined by statutes in all jurisdictionsthe agreement becomes the actus reus of the offenseseveral states require proof of an overt act to convictrequirement in federal lawJustification for Making Conspiracy a Crimeincreases the likelihood that the criminal object will be successfully attaineddecreases the probability that the individuals involved will depart from their path of criminalityThe Act Element in Conspiracythe actus reus of the crime of conspiracy is the unlawful agreementsimple understanding is sufficientthe agreement need not be explicitthe participants in a conspiracy need not even know or see one another as long as they otherwise participate in common deedsThe Requisite Criminal Intentthe prosecution must prove that a defendant intended to further the unlawful object of the conspiracy, and such intent must exist in the minds of at least two of the partiesmay be inferable from the conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstancesConspiracy Distinguished from Aiding and Abetting and Attemptconspiracy involved proof of an agreementnot essential to aiding and abetting a crimeaiding and abetting requires some actual participationThe Pinkerton Rulea member of a conspiracy is liable for all offenses committed in furtherance of the conspiracybased on the theory that conspirators are agents of one anotherconspirators are bound by the acts of their co-conspiratorsnot all courts have acceptedSome Unique Aspects of the Offense of Conspiracyresponsible for the acts of the others within the context of their common designpermits an exception to the rule of evidence that ordinarily excluded hearsay statement from being used in a trial over the defendant’s objectionstatements made “in furtherance of “ the conspiracy may be admitted into evidenceonce formed, a conspiracy continues to exist until consummated, abandoned, or otherwise terminated by some affirmative actamong the most commonly charged federal offensesConspiracy Does Not Merge into the Target Crimeregarded as a separate and distinct crimedoes not marge into the target offenselaw can more effectively deal with organized crime, criminal street gangs, and other dangerous collective efforts to commit crimesThe Wharton’s Rule Exceptionprovides an exception to the principle that conspiracy does not merge into the target crimean agreement by two persons to commit a particular crime cannot be prosecuted as a conspiracy when the crime is of such a nature as to necessarily require the participation of two persons for its commissionCriticism of the Conspiracy Lawsthe intent requirement and the form of agreement required are somewhat imprecise, a conspiracy is easier to prove than specific substantive crimesDefenses to the Charge of Conspiracystatutes specifically provide for a defense of withdrawal from and renunciation of a conspiracyentrapment may be a defense to conspiracy under some circumstancesnot a defense if the officer acted in good