Purchase a course multi-pack for yourself or a friend and save up to 50%!
5-COURSE MULTI-PACK $180
10-COURSE MULTI-PACK $300
Accelerated 1-year bachelor's program
Question 1
Lyle asks Eric if Eric will help him kill his parents. Eric agrees to help Lyle, although he has no intention of doing so. Eric helps Lyle plan the crime, all the time planning on turning Eric into the police before the actual commission of the crimes. On the day the murders are to take place, Eric makes an anonymous phone call to the police tipping them off as to what is going to happen. The police arrest Lyle and Eric and charge them both with conspiracy to commit murder. Eric will probably be:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct In order for the mens rea requirement for conspiracy to be satisfied, the defendant must intend to form an agreement with someone else to commit a crime and, at the time the defendant made the agreement, he must have intended to do what he would need to do in order to bring about the commission of the crime as well. In this case, Eric did intend to enter into an agreement with Lyle. However, he did not intend to do what he needed to do to carry out the crime. Therefore, Eric did not have the requisite mens rea for conspiracy and cannot be convicted. Thus, D is the correct answer.
Incorrect! In order for the mens rea requirement for conspiracy to be satisfied, the defendant must intend to form an agreement with someone else to commit a crime and, at the time the defendant made the agreement, he must have intended to do what he would need to do in order to bring about the commission of the crime as well. In this case, Eric did intend to enter into an agreement with Lyle. However, he did not intend to do what he needed to do to carry out the crime. Therefore, Eric did not have the requisite mens rea for conspiracy and cannot be convicted. Thus, D is the correct answer.
Question 2
Sydney and Vaughn are best friends. One night, Vaughn is arrested and charged with robbing a bank. Although there is no obvious evidence that Sydney was in on the robbery, she is charged with conspiracy to commit the robbery. In order to maximize their chances of convicting Sydney, the prosecution must prove that:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Many times, the prosecution will prove the requisite intent by showing that the defendant had a stake in the venture he was planning with his co-conspirators. In other words, the prosecution can prove intent by demonstrating that the defendant was going to benefit, either financially or otherwise, if the object of the conspiracy was successfully carried out. Therefore, the best chance the prosecution has of convicting Sydney for conspiracy is by proving that she benefited from the robbery. Thus, C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Many times, the prosecution will prove the requisite intent by showing that the defendant had a stake in the venture he was planning with his co-conspirators. In other words, the prosecution can prove intent by demonstrating that the defendant was going to benefit, either financially or otherwise, if the object of the conspiracy was successfully carried out. Therefore, the best chance the prosecution has of convicting Sydney for conspiracy is by proving that she benefited from the robbery. Thus, C is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 3
Lyle asks Eric if Eric will help him kill his parents. Eric agrees to help Lyle, although, he only enters into the agreement so that he can turn Lyle in and have Lyle put in prison. Eric helps Lyle plan the crime, all the time planning on turning Eric into the police before the actual commission of the crimes. On the day the murders are to take place, Eric makes an anonymous phone call to the police tipping them off as to what is going to happen. The police arrest Lyle and Eric and charge them both with conspiracy to commit murder. Lyle will probably be:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct It is important to remember that it takes two people to enter into an agreement. That being the case, if one party does not intend to enter into an agreement, the second party cannot be convicted of a conspiracy. Here, although Eric did agree to help Lyle, he did not intend to agree to commit a crime. Because Eric did not intend to agree, Lyle essentially had no one to agree with. That being the case, he cannot be convicted of conspiracy and D is the correct answer.
Incorrect! It is important to remember that it takes two people to enter into an agreement. That being the case, if one party does not intend to enter into an agreement, the second party cannot be convicted of a conspiracy. Here, although Eric did agree to help Lyle, he did not intend to agree to commit a crime. Because Eric did not intend to agree, Lyle essentially had no one to agree with. That being the case, he cannot be convicted of conspiracy and D is the correct answer.
Question 4
Danny and Scott conspire to rob a branch of Fleet Bank of Boston. They successfully pull the robbery off and flee to their friend Ronnie's summer house to hide out. Danny and Scott are caught, charged and convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. The prosecution cannot prove that there was any explicit agreement between Scott and Danny and Ronnie. However, Ronnie can still be convicted of conspiracy if the prosecution can show that:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct If the prosecution can prove conspiracy between two parties, the actions of a third party may be used to prove the third party's involvement in the conspiracy, even if there is no direct evidence that the third party actually entered into an agreement. That being the case, proving that Ronnie allowed Scott and Danny to use her summer house will give the prosecution the best chance of convicting Ronnie of conspiracy, even though there was no explicit agreement between her and Danny and Scott. Therefore, B is the correct answer.
Incorrect! If the prosecution can prove conspiracy between two parties, the actions of a third party may be used to prove the third party's involvement in the conspiracy, even if there is no direct evidence that the third party actually entered into an agreement. That being the case, proving that Ronnie allowed Scott and Danny to use her summer house will give the prosecution the best chance of convicting Ronnie of conspiracy, even though there was no explicit agreement between her and Danny and Scott. Therefore, B is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 5
Danny and Scott conspire to rob a branch of the Fleet Bank of Boston, launder the money and then use the money to make illegal stock purchases. If they are caught, they can be convicted of three separate conspiracies for the robbery, the money laundering scheme and the plan to make illegal stock purchases:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The general rule is that, if there is only one agreement between the parties, there is only one conspiracy regardless of how many crimes the conspirators plan to commit. Here, although Danny and Scott have conspired to commit three different crimes, they have only made one agreement. That being the case, they can only be charged with one conspiracy and B is the correct answer.
Incorrect! The general rule is that, if there is only one agreement between the parties, there is only one conspiracy regardless of how many crimes the conspirators plan to commit. Here, although Danny and Scott have conspired to commit three different crimes, they have only made one agreement. That being the case, they can only be charged with one conspiracy and B is the correct answer.
Question 6
In a chain and link conspiracy involving ten different people, the prosecution will have to prove ___ conspiracies in order to convict each co-conspirator:
Correct A chain and link conspiracy is a conspiracy in which there is a series of overlapping transactions which are construed to involve only one overall agreement. The different transactions are considered the links in the overall agreement, which is considered the chain. Because a chain and link conspiracy is the product one larger agreement, the prosecution only has to prove one conspiracy in order to convict each co-conspirator. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Incorrect! A chain and link conspiracy is a conspiracy in which there is a series of overlapping transactions which are construed to involve only one overall agreement. The different transactions are considered the links in the overall agreement, which is considered the chain. Because a chain and link conspiracy is the product one larger agreement, the prosecution only has to prove one conspiracy in order to convict each co-conspirator. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 7
In a wheel and spoke conspiracy involving ten different people, the prosecution will have to prove ___ conspiracies in order to convict each co-conspirator:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct A wheel and spoke conspiracy is where one person or entity, the hub, has different conspiratorial agreements with different people who have nothing to do with each other. In this case the one common person is the hub and each co-conspirator is a different spoke. This being the case, if the prosecution wants to convict each co-conspirator for conspiracy, the prosecution will have to prove Niine different conspiracies. Therefore, C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! A wheel and spoke conspiracy is where one person or entity, the hub, has different conspiratorial agreements with different people who have nothing to do with each other. In this case the one common person is the hub and each co-conspirator is a different spoke. This being the case, if the prosecution wants to convict each co-conspirator for conspiracy, the prosecution will have to prove Niine different conspiracies. Therefore, C is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 8
Danny and Scott agree to jointly rob a branch of the Fleet Bank of Boston. They carefully plan the robbery and successfully carry out the plan. They are eventually caught and brought to trial. At common law, they can be convicted for:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct At common law, if a conspiracy is followed by the completion of the crime, the charge of conspiracy merges into the completed crime and, therefore, the defendant can only be charged for the completed crime and not for the conspiracy. Here, since Scott and Danny actually completed the robbery, the conspiracy merges into the completed robbery and they can only be charged with the robbery. Therefore, B is the correct answer.
Incorrect! At common law, if a conspiracy is followed by the completion of the crime, the charge of conspiracy merges into the completed crime and, therefore, the defendant can only be charged for the completed crime and not for the conspiracy. Here, since Scott and Danny actually completed the robbery, the conspiracy merges into the completed robbery and they can only be charged with the robbery. Therefore, B is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 9
Danny and Scott agree to jointly rob a branch of the Fleet Bank of Boston. They carefully plan the robbery and successfully carry out the plan. They are eventually caught and brought to trial. If they are tried in a jurisdiction that had adopted the Model Penal Code, they can be convicted for:
Correct The merger of conspiracy into the completed crime has been abandoned by modern rules. Therefore, under modern rules, defendants who conspire to commit a crime and who then actually commit the crime can be convicted of both the conspiracy and the completed crime. This being the case, Scott and Danny can be convicted of both the robbery and the conspiracy to commit the robbery and A is the correct answer.
Incorrect! The merger of conspiracy into the completed crime has been abandoned by modern rules. Therefore, under modern rules, defendants who conspire to commit a crime and who then actually commit the crime can be convicted of both the conspiracy and the completed crime. This being the case, Scott and Danny can be convicted of both the robbery and the conspiracy to commit the robbery and A is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 10
Danny, Scott, Zach, Ronnie and Steven conspire to rob a branch of the Fleet Bank of Boston. They are caught before they can actually rob the bank, charged with conspiracy to commit robbery and tried in a jurisdiction that follows the common law. The prosecution's cases against Scott, Zach, Ronnie and Steven are weak and they are all acquitted. However, the prosecution has very strong evidence showing that Danny agreed to help commit the robbery. Therefore, Danny can be convicted even though his co-conspirators have been acquitted.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The plurality rule of conspiracy essentially requires that there be at least two parties to an agreement in order for there to be a conspiracy. As an extension of this rule, if a defendant is tried with a number of other defendants for conspiracy and all of the other defendants are acquitted, then the defendant must be acquitted as well because, by definition, he could not have entered into a conspiracy unless someone else entered into it with him. That being the case, since everybody else was acquitted of conspiracy charges, Danny must be acquitted as well, regardless of how strong the evidence against him is. Therefore, FALSE is the correct answer.
Incorrect! The plurality rule of conspiracy essentially requires that there be at least two parties to an agreement in order for there to be a conspiracy. As an extension of this rule, if a defendant is tried with a number of other defendants for conspiracy and all of the other defendants are acquitted, then the defendant must be acquitted as well because, by definition, he could not have entered into a conspiracy unless someone else entered into it with him. That being the case, since everybody else was acquitted of conspiracy charges, Danny must be acquitted as well, regardless of how strong the evidence against him is. Therefore, FALSE is the correct answer.
Question 11
Danny, Scott, Zach, Ronnie and Steven conspire to rob a branch of the Fleet Bank of Boston. The police are tipped off before they can actually rob the bank. Danny is caught but everybody manages to escape and go into hiding. Danny is charged with conspiracy to commit robbery and tried in a jurisdiction that follows the common law. The prosecution has very strong evidence showing that Danny agreed to help commit the robbery. Therefore, Danny can be convicted even though his co-conspirators have not been caught and charged.
Correct A defendant can be convicted of conspiracy even if his co-conspirators are never caught and tried. As long as the prosecution can prove that there was an agreement between the defendant and the other party, the conviction will stand. Here, the prosecution has the evidence to prove the existence of an agreement. Therefore, even though his co-conspirators have not been caught and tried, Danny can be convicted of conspiracy and TRUE is the correct answer.
Incorrect! A defendant can be convicted of conspiracy even if his co-conspirators are never caught and tried. As long as the prosecution can prove that there was an agreement between the defendant and the other party, the conviction will stand. Here, the prosecution has the evidence to prove the existence of an agreement. Therefore, even though his co-conspirators have not been caught and tried, Danny can be convicted of conspiracy and TRUE is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 12
Danny, Scott, Zach, Ronnie and Steven conspire to rob a branch of the Fleet Bank of Boston. They are caught before they can actually rob the bank, charged with conspiracy to commit robbery and tried in a jurisdiction that has adopted the Model Penal Code. The prosecution's cases against Scott, Zach, Ronnie and Steven are weak and they are all acquitted. However, the prosecution has very strong evidence showing that Danny agreed to help commit the robbery. Therefore, Danny can be convicted even though his co-conspirators have been acquitted:
Correct According to the model penal code's unilateral approach, a conviction for conspiracy does not require an agreement between at least two people. Rather, the defendant can be convicted of conspiring to commit a crime as long as he himself agreed to take part in the crime. Therefore, even though all of his co-conspirators have been acquitted, Danny can still be convicted of conspiracy because he himself agreed to take part in the robbery. Thus, TRUE is the correct answer.
Incorrect! According to the model penal code's unilateral approach, a conviction for conspiracy does not require an agreement between at least two people. Rather, the defendant can be convicted of conspiring to commit a crime as long as he himself agreed to take part in the crime. Therefore, even though all of his co-conspirators have been acquitted, Danny can still be convicted of conspiracy because he himself agreed to take part in the robbery. Thus, TRUE is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 13
Danny, Scott, Zach, Ronnie and Steven conspire to steal one hundred bars of solid gold belonging to the United States Treasury from a branch of the Fleet Bank of Boston. What they do not know is that all of the U.S. Treasury's gold is kept at Fort Knox and therefore, there is no gold in the Fleet Bank of Boston's vault. They are caught before they can actually rob the bank and are charged with conspiracy to commit Federal Grand Larceny. The defendants argue that they should not be convicted of the conspiracy because, since there was no gold at the bank, it was impossible to commit the crime they were trying to commit. This impossibility argument is a valid defense and they will be acquitted:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The fact that it was impossible to successfully complete the target crime is not a defense to a charge of conspiracy. That being the case, Danny, Scott, Zach, Ronnie and Steven can all be convicted and FALSE is the correct answer.
Incorrect! The fact that it was impossible to successfully complete the target crime is not a defense to a charge of conspiracy. That being the case, Danny, Scott, Zach, Ronnie and Steven can all be convicted and FALSE is the correct answer.
Question 14
Danny, Scott, Zach, Ronnie and Steven conspire to steal one hundred bars of solid gold belonging to the United States Treasury from a branch Fort Knox. They each play a role in planning the robbery. The morning of the robbery, Danny has a change of heart and tells his co-conspirators that he doesn't want to go through with the crime. The others go on without Danny and they successfully rob the bank. They are eventually caught and everybody, including Danny, is charged with conspiracy to commit robbery. The trials take place in a jurisdiction that has adopted the Model Penal Core. If Danny argues that he withdrew from the conspiracy and should therefore be acquitted, he will probably be:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The model penal code allows a defendant to avoid a conviction if he can prove that he completely and voluntarily withdrew from the conspiracy and prevented the success of the conspiracy from being achieved. Here, Danny did voluntarily withdraw from the conspiracy. However, he did not prevent the object of the conspiracy, the robbery, from being achieved. That being the case, his withdrawal was not legally effective and he can be convicted of conspiracy along with everybody else. Therefore, D is the correct answer.
Incorrect! The model penal code allows a defendant to avoid a conviction if he can prove that he completely and voluntarily withdrew from the conspiracy and prevented the success of the conspiracy from being achieved. Here, Danny did voluntarily withdraw from the conspiracy. However, he did not prevent the object of the conspiracy, the robbery, from being achieved. That being the case, his withdrawal was not legally effective and he can be convicted of conspiracy along with everybody else. Therefore, D is the correct answer.
Question 15
Danny, Scott, Zach, Ronnie and Steven conspire to steal one hundred bars of solid gold belonging to the United States Treasury from a branch Fort Knox. They successfully break into the bank and steal the gold. As per the plan, each co-conspirator leaves out of a different exit. While he is leaving the bank, Steven is stopped by a security guard. Steven beats the guard up and runs out of the bank. He then car-jacks a person and drives the car toward the meeting point that everybody is supposed to meet at. While driving the car, Steven notices some bank statements belonging to the car owner. Steven stops at the bank and withdraws all of the money in the car owner's account. They are eventually caught and arrested. Along with the bank robbery, Steven is charged with assaulting the police officer, stealing the car and stealing the car owner's money. Danny, Scott Zach and Ronnie can all be charged with:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Because co-conspirators have all agreed to participate in the commission of a crime, each co-conspirator is liable for any other crime committed by any other co-conspirator if the crime was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and the crime was a reasonably foreseeable result of the conspiracy. In this case, the assault on the officer and the theft of the car were in furtherance of the conspiracy and they were foreseeable. Therefore, even though these crimes were not part of the original plan and Steven committed them on his own, everybody else can be charged with these crimes as well. However, since the theft of the car owner's bank account was not in furtherance of the conspiracy, only Steven can be charged for that crime. Therefore, C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Because co-conspirators have all agreed to participate in the commission of a crime, each co-conspirator is liable for any other crime committed by any other co-conspirator if the crime was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and the crime was a reasonably foreseeable result of the conspiracy. In this case, the assault on the officer and the theft of the car were in furtherance of the conspiracy and they were foreseeable. Therefore, even though these crimes were not part of the original plan and Steven committed them on his own, everybody else can be charged with these crimes as well. However, since the theft of the car owner's bank account was not in furtherance of the conspiracy, only Steven can be charged for that crime. Therefore, C is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 16
Danny, Scott, Zach, Ronnie and Steven conspire to steal one hundred bars of solid gold belonging to the United States Treasury from a branch Fort Knox. The plan calls for them to rob the bank, meet at Ronnie's summer house and divide up the gold. They successfully break into the bank and steal the gold. As per the plan, they meet at the house and divide up the gold. After everybody leaves Ronnie's house, Steven car-jacks someone and drives the car toward the boarder where he has someone willing to buy the gold. While driving the car, Steven is arrested. He is charged with robbing the bank and stealing the car. Danny, Scott, Zach and Ronnie can all be charged with:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Co-conspirators cannot be charged for crimes that other co-conspirators commit after the conclusion of the conspiracy. The general rule is that a conspiracy is over once all the objectives of the agreement have been successfully accomplished. Here, Steven stole the car after the conspiracy was over. Therefore, Danny, Scott, Ronnie and Zach cannot be convicted for that crime. Thus, B is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Co-conspirators cannot be charged for crimes that other co-conspirators commit after the conclusion of the conspiracy. The general rule is that a conspiracy is over once all the objectives of the agreement have been successfully accomplished. Here, Steven stole the car after the conspiracy was over. Therefore, Danny, Scott, Ronnie and Zach cannot be convicted for that crime. Thus, B is the correct answer.