Inchoate offense

An inchoate offense is a legal term for a preliminary or incomplete crime. These are actions where a person prepares for or seeks to commit another crime. The law treats this conduct as criminal even if no actual harm has occurred yet. This is because the law aims to prevent the harm that would have happened. An inchoate offense is often called an attempted offense. For instance, an attempted robbery is the inchoate version of the crime of robbery.

To understand these crimes, one must look at the mens rea. This Latin term refers to the "guilty mind" or the mental state of the person. Most inchoate offenses require specific intent to commit the underlying crime. For example, a person guilty of solicitation of murder must have intended for a person to die. However, some laws use different standards. The United States Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, requires only "knowing" conduct. This is often described as recklessness.

There are several distinct types of inchoate offenses. Attempt occurs when a person intends to commit a crime and engages in conduct that tends to complete it. Conspiracy happens when two or more people agree to engage in or cause a crime. In New York, conspiracy in the sixth degree is a class B misdemeanor. Solicitation involves asking, commanding, or requesting another person to commit a crime. Criminal facilitation is another type. It occurs when a person believes it is probable that they are rendering aid to a crime.

Legal scholars and courts have debated how these crimes are proven. Specific intent can sometimes be inferred from the circumstances of the case. One way to prove this is through the doctrine of "dangerous proximity." The Model Penal Code uses a different standard called a "substantial step in a course of conduct." These rules help determine how close a person must get to a crime before they are legally responsible.

History shows how the rules regarding impossibility have evolved. In the past, impossibility was often a complete defense under common law. In Collins's Case, an individual tried to steal an umbrella they believed was someone else's. It turned out the umbrella belonged to them. Because the act was impossible, they were not guilty of theft. This was because the harm of the theft was absent.

This principle changed with major rulings in England, such as R v. Ring and R v. Brown. In R v. Brown, an attempt to steal from an empty pocket was considered a crime. The court decided that impossibility is no defense if the actor does not know the conditions make the crime impossible. This logic is now universal in the United States. It is used in 40 states that follow the Model Penal Code. The code states a person is guilty if they act with the intent to commit a crime based on the circumstances as they believe them to be.

Defendants may also use the defense of abandonment. To use this, a person must prove they stopped their actions to further the crime or conspiracy. They might try to stop the crime while it is already ongoing. They might also try to convince their co-conspirators to halt their actions. In some cases, a person might even report the crime to the authorities.

Finally, the merger doctrine plays a role in how these crimes are charged. In many places, the doctrine of merger has been abandoned for conspiracies. This means a person can be convicted of both the conspiracy and the main crime. However, different rules apply to attempt and solicitation. An accused person cannot be convicted of both an attempt or solicitation and the principal offense itself. This helps define the boundaries between preparing for a crime and completing it.