Appeal: Pending Entreaty for Prior Ponderance III (Ch. 2025)

[Nyeogmi]

IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR PRIOR PONDERANCE

Honorable Chancellors, I request prior ponderance and a ruling regarding an unsettled matter of law.

I. BACKGROUND

In A.P. 01-006 19.(3) Conspiracy is defined this way:

> (3) Conspiracy - If multiple players have the specific intent to commit a crime, agree to commit that crime, and at least one of them takes an overt act in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, they are guilty of that offense.

II. CAUSE OF ACTION

As described, players in a conspiracy are "guilty of that offense."

Suppose three players agree to this plan:

• A will obtain rope and give it to C
• The next morning, B will drive C to Paul's house
• C will strangle Paul

They actually do carry out this plan and kill Paul the next day. The Crown charges A, B and C for this.

The questions

• Is A guilty of Murder ("that offense") or Conspiracy to Murder (a separate offense not named?)
• Under the same facts, is C separately guilty of Murder and Conspiracy to Murder?

III. SENTENCING GUIDELINES

A possible answer from the previous section is that A is guilty of Conspiracy to Murder, but not guilty of Murder.

In that case, given that Conspiracy to Murder is a separate cause of action from Murder, what sentence can A be given?

IV. OVERT ACTS

Now suppose the same conspiracy is planned, but the actual events go differently than A, B and C intended:

• A really does obtain a rope, but while obtaining the rope, leaks critical details of the plan to D, the rope merchant
• D tells the Crown about the plan and the Crown investigates
• B and C are individually apprehended at home before having left

In this case, it appears only A has taken an overt act, but A's overt act is a necessary fact for B and C's guilt.

If A had described the plan to E (A's wife) and been arrested then instead of leaving to buy the rope, it does not seem likely that B and C could be charged.

V. OVERT ACTS, II

Now suppose a slightly different conspiracy is planned:

• A and B will go to F's Diner and obtain F's Big Breakfast the morning before the murder
• That night, A will obtain rope and give it to C
• The next morning, B will drive C to Paul's house
• C will strangle Paul

Unfortunately for A and B, when they finish their Big Breakfasts, law enforcement surrounds F's Diner and they are arrested without any chance to go obtain rope.

As in the previous pattern of facts, A and B have taken an overt act in furtherance of the stated plan. In both fact patterns, the overt act (buying rope, eating F's Big Breakfast) is not an act that would ordinarily be illegal.

The question: are A and B's breakfast plans relevant to establishing conspiracy?

VI. OVERT ACTS, III

Now suppose the previous conspiracy is planned, but one additional hitch occurs:

• Before A and B go to F's diner, unbeknownst to A and B, C goes to the local dog park and kicks five dogs in the head, one of whom happens to be Paul's.

This is not the plan that A and B made. However, what C did is certainly a crime affecting Paul.

The question: can A and B be charged? And can they be charged with anything relevant to C's additional crimes?

VII. CONCLUSIONS

This set of examples is intended to elicit answers to these broader questions:

• Are there distinct causes of action for murder and conspiracy to murder?
  • Is it possible for one person to be charged with both, over the same facts?
• Is a criminal conspiracy in any way distinct from a group agreement to commit a crime?
  • Does it incorporate elements such as a plan?
• What is an "'overt act in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy"?
  • Is it necessary that the act be illegal in itself?
  • Is there a distinction between acts like acquiring the rope (that are in some sense necessary) and acts like the dinner plan (that seem obviously unnecessary)
  • Can unrelated crimes against the same victims be overt acts?

Respectfully submitted to the Chancery on June 15, 2025,
Nyeogmi Choi