Reference no: EM133801532

Question

The defense against charge number one, attempted robbery, should be dropped because, while the accused had the mens rea they never had the actus rea. The accused never made it to the bank, they were stopped and apprehended at a convenience store which could constitute abandonment of the crime. In the Model Penal Code, prosecution may try to make the argument that the defendants took substantial steps towards the commission of the crime, but mere preparation is not enough to make a case. The accused never made it to the bank therefore even in the last-act test, the defendants were not close to committing the crime. On the charge of conspiracy it would be unlawful to charge the accused with only the evidence of hearsay. Just because Fred said that he and Joe would be robbing the credit union does not make him guilty since the act never took place. Also Fred never took any substantial steps toward the commission of the crime, and once again the accused were apprehended at a convenience store which is not the place where the crime was "planned" to take place. This is another charge that abandonment can be applied to get the charges acquitted. On the prosecution's side however the argument that can be made that the accused took substantial steps into the commission of the crime. Joe scoping out the credit union for busiest times of the day, checking for security, and opening times is a substantial step listed in the Model Penal Code. On the charges of conspiracy, the accused were found together on the day of the crime and Fred admitted to his girlfriend that he and Joe were going to rob the bank, which is agreed upon by both, and hearsay can be admitted as evidence on the charges of conspiracy. Also Joe packing his rifle and gloves, and picking up Fred is a substantial step into committing the crime.