Opinion ID: 849175
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General Conspiracy Law

Text: At common law, the crime of conspiracy was complete upon formation of the unlawful agreement. Developments in the lawCriminal conspiracy, 72 Harv. L.R. 922, 945 (1959). Michigan's approach to conspiracy law mirrors that of the common law. In Michigan, [a]ny person who conspires together with one or more persons to commit an offense prohibited by law, or to commit a legal act in an illegal manner is guilty of the crime of conspiracy.... M.C.L. § 750.157a. This common-law approach to the crime of conspiracy, however, is not the approach followed in a majority of jurisdictions. Today, most state conspiracy statutes, as well as the federal government general conspiracy statute, 18 USC §§ 371, require the additional element of an overt act. [2] An overt act is defined as some act taken by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. Marcus, Prosecution and Defense of Criminal Conspiracy Cases, ch. 2.08, at 2-71. The requirement of an overt act serves two principal purposes. First, some believe that an overt act requirement is desirable so that a conspirator is afforded a reasonable opportunity to change his mind and to withdraw from the conspiracy. The provision of the statute, that there must be an act done to effect the object of the conspiracy, merely affords a locus poenitentice, so that before the act [is] done either one or all of the parties may abandon their design, and thus avoid the penalty prescribed by the statute. United States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 204-05, 2 S.Ct. 531, 27 L.Ed. 698 (1883). In addition, the overt act requirement serves to make certain that society does not intervene prematurely, i.e., at a time when there is not a sufficiently imminent danger that the object crime will be attempted or completed. Marcus, supra at 2-74. The function of the overt act in a conspiracy prosecution is simply to manifest that the conspiracy is at work and is not a project resting solely in the minds of the conspirators. [3] 2 LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law, § 6.5, at 95. Thus, the overt act requirement ensures that the agreement to commit an unlawful objective has reached a sufficiently advanced stage to warrant preventative action. In practice, prosecutors rarely charge individuals with a conspiracy until a substantial overt act has taken place. Marcus, supra at 2-76. [4] Indeed, it is frequently the case that the completed substantive offense itself will be identified as the overt act for purposes of the conspiracy charge. Id. at 2-76, n. 18. This is readily evident in federal conspiracy cases that rely on the general conspiracy statute. See, e.g., United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (1975). Indeed, in the case before us, the substantive offense itself was completed, in effect constituting the overt act in furtherance of the unlawful objective. As explained in the majority opinion, defendant was convicted, on an aider and abettor theory, of delivery of 225 grams or more, but less than 650 grams, of a mixture containing cocaine. Because an overt act was, in fact, evident in this conspiracy, namely, the completed offense, this case is indistinguishable from the universe of conspiracies that are addressed by federal conspiracy law. Thus, I believe that the principles applied in these cases are highly relevant to the resolution of this case. [5]