Bilateral or Unilateral
People v. Foster
457 N.E.2d 405 (Ill. 1983).
Convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery.
Question
Whether Illinois will follow a unilateral theory (one person can commit the crime) or bilateral theory (both people are required to commit the crime).
Rule
Conspiracy is a person who wants and offense to be committed and agrees with another to commit the crime.
Holding
Follow a bilateral theory.
Facts
The defendant approached an Ragsdale and asked him if he was interested in making money. He then told the Ragsdale of his plan. Later Ragsdale turned the defendant into the police.
Analysis
The state argues that this writing on the statute promotes a unilateral theory. However, the court disagrees and says that the legislative intent did not lean towards a unilateral theory. Additionally, the defendant can still be charged with solicitation and any lenity should lean towards the defendant.
Thus, he cannot be guilty of conspiracy because you need two people where both individuals have the intent to agree and the intent to commit the crime. Because Ragsdale did not intend to commit the crime, he is not a co-conspirator and the defendant cannot be guilty of conspiracy.
Additional Notes
The question is to determine if you need two people to satisfy all the requirements for a conspiracy or if an individual can conspire on their own.
I am of the opinion that a bilateral approach is not as strong as a unilateral agreement.
Under the MPC, he would have been guilty because him alone had committed the acts necessary for a conviction.
Defenses
Iannelli v. United States
420 U.S. 770 (1975).
Convicted of conspiracy to operate a gambling operation and for doing so.
Question
Whether the defendant’s can receive separate sentences or is there an exception?
Rule
There is no merger of crime, which means that the defendants can be provided different sentences. Wharton is an exception:
“An agreement cannot be a conspiracy when the crime is of such nature as to make it necessary to have two persons to commit it.” However, if there are more than the required people to commit the crime, this exception does not apply.
Holding
Wharton’s rule does not apply here.
Facts
One district said that the
Analysis
Why does Wharton’s rule not apply?
This is because the harm is more broad than that applied to just those parties.
Additional Notes
Why do we have this rule?
What are classic examples of Wharton’s rule? Dueling, bigamy, and adultery. For example, if two people conspire to commit adultery together, there cannot be a separate sentence for conspiracy (because the requirement for adultery requires two people). However, if a third person is in that conspiracy, then Wharton’s rule will not apply?
Gerbardi v. United States
287 U.S. 112 (1932).
Charged with conspiracy to violate the Mann Act: transporting a woman across state lines for the purpose of prostitution.
Question
Can the woman be convicted of conspiracy considering how she is the woman being transported?
Rule
The Mann Act
Holding
Not guilty of conspiracy.
Analysis
The court determined that in passing the law, you can’t convict the person being transported. Because she is the person being transported, she can’t commit the crime and can therefore not be guilty as a conspirator.
Additional Notes
The big takeaway is that a victim of a crime cannot be a conspirator to it
People v. Sconce
279 Ca. Rptr. 59 (Ct. App. 1991).
Conspiracy to comit murder
Question
Whether the defendant actually withdrew. If he did, is that a valid defense?
Rule
True withdrawal:
- Rejection of the conspiracy communicated to all the co-conspirators
Full defense only a defense only if no overt act has occurred.
If an overt act has occurred, the benefit is that there is a lack of future Pinkerton liability.
Holding
Guilty of conspiracy.
Facts
Sconce conspired with another to kill the victim. However, Sconce called it off. The trial court dismissed because he withdrew.
Analysis
An overt act had occurred (going to the house to scope out the area) and therefore can be guilty of conspiracy. However, if the bomb had been placed an gone off, he would not be guilty of the substantive crime.
Additional Notes
The benefit of allowing a withdrawal as a defense is because you want to encourage withdraw.
Under the MPC 5.03(6) Renunciation. You can use withdraw as a total defense if the defendant “thwart[s] the success of the conspiracy”.
Disclaimer
The content contained in this article may contain inaccuracies and is not intended to reflect the opinions, views, beliefs, or practices of any academic professor or publication. Instead, this content is a reflection on the author’s understanding of the law and legal practices.
