ANSWER: YES. BY SECURING THESE ARMBANDS (OVERT ACT), THIS ONE INDIVIDUAL
HAS COMPLETED THE OFFENSE OF CONSPIRACY.
THE NINE SLEEPING
COCONSPIRATORS ARE LIABLE FOR CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT LARCENY.
ADDITIONALLY, HE HAS ALSO MANAGED TO MAKE THE NINE CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR
THE LARCENY OF THE ARMBANDS. THIS LIABILITY WILL EXIST EVEN THOUGH THE
OTHER COCONSPIRATORS WERE UNAWARE OF HIS ACTIONS. AN OVERT ACT DONE BY
ONE CONSPIRATOR IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CRIME BECOMES THE ACT OF ALL THE
COCONSPIRATORS. THEREFORE, EACH CONSPIRATOR IS LIABLE FOR ALL OFFENSES
WHICH ARE COMMITTED IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY BY ANY OF THE
COCONSPIRATORS WHILE THE CONSPIRACY CONTINUES AND THE PERSON REMAINS A
PARTY TO IT. THIS IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH EACH DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN, OR HAVE
KNOWLEDGE OF, ALL OF THE DETAILS OF THE EXECUTION OF THE CONSPIRACY. FOR
EXAMPLE, IF THREE SOLDIERS AGREE TO ROB THE ON-POST BANK, ALL WOULD BE
CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR ROBBERY AND MURDER IF ONE OF THE SOLDIERS SHOT AND
KILLED THE CLERK DURING THE ROBBERY. THE SOLDIER WHO WAS OUTSIDE IN THE
GETAWAY CAR WAITING TO DRIVE THE OTHER TWO FROM THE BANK AFTER THE
ROBBERY IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE MURDER EVEN IF THE CONSPIRATORS
SPECIFICALLY AGREED AHEAD OF TIME NOT TO HURT ANYONE. THE DEATH OF THE
ROBBERY VICTIM IS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE. THEREFORE, ALL CONSPIRATORS
WILL BE CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THAT MURDER EVEN THOUGH THEY AGREED NOT
TO HURT ANYONE. ALSO, NOT BEING IN THE BANK WHEN THE SHOOTING OCCURRED
WILL NOT RELIEVE OUR DRIVER-CONSPIRATOR OF HIS CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR THE
4. Termination of the Conspiracy.
The longer a conspiracy has gone on, the greater the likelihood that additional people
may have joined it, thus broadening the focus of an investigation. Additionally, since the statute of
limitations on a particular crime does not normally begin to run until after a crime is complete,
pinpointing the end of the conspiracy might determine whether the individual may be prosecuted for the
crime at all. Finally, statements made by conspirators against each other may be admissible, as long as
they were made while the conspiracy was still in progress.
A person cannot be convicted of conspiracy if he effectively withdraws before an overt
act is committed. Part IV, para 5c(6), (MCM 1984) If a conspirator withdraws from the conspiracy after
the performance of an overt act by one of the coconspirators, he remains guilty of conspiracy and guilty
of any offenses which were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy by the other conspirators up to
the time of the withdrawal. However, he is not liable for offenses committed by the remaining
conspirators after his withdrawal. Part IV, MCM, 1984, para 5c(6).
Withdrawal from a criminal conspiracy requires an affirmative act sufficient to show the
individual desires to disassociate himself with the conspiracy. Mere passive noninvolvement in the final
stages of the crime is insufficient to constitute a withdrawal from the conspiracy. United States v.
Murphy, CM 435, 280 (ACMR, 19 Oct 78). Withdrawal requires conduct that is totally inconsistent
with adherence to the conspiracy, and which shows that the individual has severed all connection with it.
A conspirator can effectively withdraw from a conspiracy by reporting it to command or law
enforcement authorities. Part IV, MCM, 1984, para 5c(6).