skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 48806 Find in a Library
Title: CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - THE STATE OF MIND CRIME - INTENT, PROVING INTENT, AND ANTI-FEDERAL INTENT
Author(s): P MARCUS
Corporate Author: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
School of Law
United States of America
Date Published: 1976
Page Count: 31
Sponsoring Agency: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL 61801
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY ARE DISCUSSED. ASPECTS OFTEN CITED IN JUDICIAL DECISIONS INCLUDE STATE OF MIND CONCERNING THE AGREEMENT, CORRUPT MOTIVE, PROOF OF INTENT, AND SPECIFIC INTENT.
Abstract: IT IS NOTED THAT THE CENTRAL FACTOR IN THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY IS THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PARTIES THAT INDICATES THE INTENTION TO COMMIT A CRIME. IN THE PAST, COURTS HAVE REQUIRED THAT AT LEAST TWO PARTIES MUST AGREE AND INTEND TO COMMIT A CRIME BEFORE CONSPIRACY OCCURS IF ONE OR TWO PARTIES IS SHOWN NOT TO HAVE AGREED TO THE INTENT, THEN NEITHER PARTY WAS CONSIDERED GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY. THE DRAFTERS OF THE MODE PENAL CODE, HOWEVER, ARGUE FOR THE UNILATERAL INTERPRETATION OF CONSPIRACY WHICH ONLY REQUIRES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF SOLICITED AGREEMENT FROM A SECOND PARTY WITH THE INTENT OF COMMITTING A CRIME, EVEN THOUGH THE SECOND PARTY MAY NOT HAVE AGREED TO PARTICIPATE. THE COURTS GENERALLY ACCEPT THIS VIEW OF CONSPIRACY IN THE INTEREST OF PREVENTING JOINT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY CONVICTING PERSONS OF THE PLANNING ACTIVITY ITSELF. JUDICIAL DECISIONS ARE EXAMINED TO SHOW WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR ESTABLISHING THAT PARTIES COMMUNICATED WITH THE INTENT OF COMMITTING A SPECIFIC CRIME. IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT THE DEFENDANTS IN COMBINATION INTEND TO COMMIT THE OBJECT OFFENSE, UNDERSTAND THAT COMMITTING THE CRIME IS A CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR AGREEMENT, AND DESIRE THAT PARTICULAR OFFENSE AS THE OUTCOME OF THEIR AGREEMENT. THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH ESTABLISHING CORRUPT MOTIVES ARE ALSO CONSIDERED. THIS HAS TO DO WITH AGREEMENTS IN WHICH THE PARTIES DID NOT KNOW THAT THEIR AGREEMENT CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE LAW. PEOPLE V. POWELL IS USED AS THE FRAME OF REFERENCE IN DISCUSSING THE ISSUE. IN EXAMINING CASES THAT DEAL WITH PROOF OF INTENT, THE ASSOCIATION WITH OTHER CONSPIRATORS AND PROVIDING LAWFUL GOODS OR SERVICES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE INTENT OR THE CRIME ARE DISCUSSED AS MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF OF INTENT. CONSPIRACY UNDER FEDERAL LAW IS CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO AGREEMENTS TO COMMIT A CRIME THAT INVOLVES THE USE OF TRANSPORTATION ACROSS STATE LINES AND ALSO AGREEMENTS TO ASSAULT A FEDERAL OFFICER. THE CENTRAL MATTER CONSIDERED IS THE QUESTION OF CULPABILITY WHEN THE PARTIES DO NOT HAVE SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE THAT WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO CONSTITUTES VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW. (RCB)
Index Term(s): Conspiracy; Federal law violations; Judicial decisions; Studies
Note: REPRINTED FROM UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW FORUM, V 1976, N 3, P 627-656
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=48806

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.