A manager of a warehouse approaches an employee and convinces the employee to help break into the company's safe to steal cash during the upcoming weekend. The employee agrees but decides to back out the day before the planned theft because of guilt. The manager proceeds with the break-in alone and steals the cash. Can the manager be held liable for the agreement made with the employee, and if so, why?
Yes, because the agreement was formed, and the manager took steps toward the planned theft.
No, because the employee decided to withdraw due to their last-minute decision not to participate.
No, because the manager committed the theft alone, affecting the relevance of the agreement to the outcome.
Yes, because agreements to commit illegal acts may still establish liability even when one party later withdraws.
The manager can still be held liable for the initial agreement to steal from the safe because criminal liability can arise from an agreement to commit a crime when one party takes an overt act toward its completion. The decision by the employee to withdraw after agreeing does not erase the initial criminal liability stemming from the agreement, nor does it negate the overt act already performed by the manager. While withdrawal might affect liability for future crimes committed to further that agreement, it does not absolve the earlier culpability. The incorrect choices either overlook the continued liability for making the agreement or misunderstand how the subsequent completion of the theft interacts with the agreement's relevance.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is criminal liability in the context of conspiracy to commit a crime?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does it mean to take an overt act in furtherance of a crime?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does withdrawal from a conspiracy affect liability?