hey everybody its Leanne I hope you are having a great day I'm here with part six of my series on criminal law and today's lesson is going to be on parties and inchoate offenses so let's get started alright so let's talk about parties to crimes first okay so what is a party a party is someone who participates in a crime so that's pretty simple right you have two types of parties two big general categories of parties the first category is principal that would be a person who is directly involved with the commission of a crime and then you have somebody who's considered an accessory that person helps commit a crime without actually being present now at common law and you guys know from the previous lessons that common law goes back hundreds of years there were four parties to a crime under our common law and that would be principles in the first degree principles in the second degree accessories before the fact and accessories after the fact so to better help explain this these concepts I'd like to present a situation to you now let's pretend I have a prized goat he is so prized that I can actually keep him in my house not in a barn or anything he's right in the house with me and I have developed this elaborate security system to protect my goat from anybody who might try to get my goat okay now unfortunately you and my neighbor both have this deep interest in stealing my goat okay so just keep that scenario in mind and we're going to use this scenario as we go through the lesson so that you can better understand I hope all of these different parties to crimes okay so the first one that I mentioned under the common law was principal in the first degree now this is the person who actually committed the crime so let's say you you decide that you are going to break through my elaborate security system you're going to go inside of my house you steal my goat you take him outside of my house with the intent to permanently deprive me of my goat once you have done that you have committed the crime you're actually present for the entire thing and therefore you are what is called a principal in the first degree now a principal in the second degree is someone who aids councils assists or encourages the principal one the first degree during the commission of the crime and this person is sometimes referred to as an accomplice okay so in my example remember I said that my neighbor also wanted to help you with this whole situation of stealing my goat so let's say my neighbor he decided that he was going to tell you when I wasn't home so he's communicating this information to you once you arrive at my house he meets you outside my house and he helps you break through my elaborate security system though he doesn't actually go inside of the house and steal the goat and once you get inside and you take the goat and you leave actually my neighbor has decided to go home however because he was actually present during the crime and he actually participated in he helped you with it he assisted you with it because of that he is now a principal in the second degree he is your accomplice now to be a principal in the second degree it is required but that person have a minimum of what is called constructive presence if they are completely off-site they are a different person they fall under a different classification so an example of constructive presence is something that I just talked about he's there and then he's gone right the classic example of constructive presence is somebody who sits in a getaway car so let's say my neighbor decided you know to drive you up to my driveway he sits in the car you get out you break through the security system you steal my goat you returned to the car with my goat the whole time the neighbor is in the car that is constructive presence he didn't actually do anything except drives a car but he was there right he assisted you he aided you that is considered constructive presence and that makes him a principal in the second degree now for punishment purposes the law looks at both of those people the guy driving the getaway car and the guy who actually stole the goat you guys are equally guilty and therefore you are punished equally under the law okay so let's move on to accessories what exactly are these people now this is a person who helps commit a crime and they're not actually present at the crime we've got two types we've got accessory before the fact and we have an accessory after the fact now an accessory before the fact is a person who without being present encourages orders or helps another person commit a crime now let's say my security system is very elaborate and you and my neighbor don't know anything about security systems so you go seek the help of this guy we'll just call him Jimin so you guys go and you talk to Jimin and Jimin explains to you how to break through the security system because he is somebody who has worked on these security systems before he knows exactly how to break through them okay now he knows you guys are planning to disable my security system so that you can commit a crime so that you can steal my goat now but all he does is give you the information that you need in order to do that he doesn't come to the scene of the crime he doesn't even know when it's going to occur but he knew it was going to occur at some point in the future and he provided you with enough information so that you could actually complete the crime in that case he is considered an accessory before the fact he helped with the planning does that make sense I hope so now that's different than somebody who is an accessory after the fact an accessory after the fact is a person who learns of a past crime and then helps to conceal the crime or the criminal now in this instance imagine that after you in my neighbor have stolen my goat you guys are in the getaway car you decide to drive to your friend Sally's house now Sally she sees you guys pull up you have a goat in the car she's like hmm I think that's Leanne's go what are they doing with Leanne's goat and you guys tell Sally that oh we just stole this goat from Leanne and instead of saying hey you guys get out of here I'm gonna call the police what does she do she says well you guys better come inside of my house and hide because I know the police are going to be looking for you and they're going to be looking for that goat once Sally takes that step she becomes an accessory after the fact she because number one she learned to the crime and number two she helped conceal it by inviting you into her home she hid not only you the criminal but she hid the evidence which was the goat okay so at common law accessories could not be convicted until the principals were convicted so at common law years and years and years hundreds of years ago they had rules that said look Sally who really didn't you know she showed up later and also Jim and remember he came before because he just gave you information I commonly said we can't arrest those people unless we are able to convict the people who actually stole the goat because I mean think about they're related to the crime but if the crime the the principal's themselves aren't actually convicted of the crime how are you convicting these other people that are just accessories before the fact and accessories after the fact it also procedural rules that they put into place just made it more difficult to prosecute accessories at all rather than to prosecute principals however what I just told you is no longer the law you can see why they did that however now statutes commonly group principals and accessories before the fact together and then they punish them all equally because everybody that's involved in a crime should be held accountable and should be responsible for the crime now notice in that last sentence on the slide it says statutes commonly group principles that would be the principle in the first degree in the principle in the second degree and accessories before the fact you notice they didn't include accessories after the fact they are treated a little differently and we're going to get to that in a minute but in this case we are specifically talking about accessories before the fact and principles they are all grouped together in statutes and they are punished equally okay so what mental state do you need to have in order to be an accomplice I mean what kind of like you know evil mindset do you have to have in order to steal my goat I mean come on what kind of evil purpose person are you it's very sad well before enduring the commission of the crime this is what your mental state should be according to the common law you should have a specific intent you're specifically intending to commit that crime the crime of stealing my goat that's the mindset that you need to have in order to be an accomplice now under the model Penal Code it says that you have to do what you are doing the acts that you are taking you must do so with a mind that is knowing or purposeful toward committing a crime negligent and reckless acts are not enough to make a person an accessory or a principal in the second degree so if you are just doing something basically almost by accident you're just not even paying attention or you're reckless you don't even really care about the consequences of your actions but you're not specifically and willfully or purposefully intending to do something that's just not enough to make you an accessory or a principal in the second degree all right so let's zoom in on accessories after the fact I said that they were treated a little differently okay so a person is an accessory after the fact if they one aid comfort or shelter a criminal okay so if they they do all of that in relation to a criminal - with the purpose of assisting the criminal and avoiding arrest or prosecution it has to be after the crime is committed and the accessory must not be present during the commission of the crime if you have all of those things then you have an accessory after the fact in my example of Sally who let you come into her home after you committed the crime she meets all of those elements and she is indeed an accessory after the fact her mental state if she were to be prosecuted the prosecution would have to prove okay that sally was aware of your criminal status and so they would have to prove that somehow in my story you told her what happened right and - they would have to prove that sally intended to hinder any attempts for you all to be arrested or to be prosecuted and again she's concealing you and she's concealing the evidence now interestingly it is possible to be both an accessory before the fact and an accessory after the fact so let's pretend now we know Jimin is an accessory before the fact because he helped you with the planning remember he gave you all the information you needed to break through the elaborate security system right let's pretend instead of going to Sally's house after you committed the crime you went to jimin's house and he did the same thing Sally did he decided he was gonna hide you and my goat and my neighbor all at his residence once he does that he fits into that category of both an accessory before the fact and an accessory after the fact see how this is all fitting together how this this system of parties works right now another interesting note is that accessories after the fact are generally punished less severe principles and accessories before the fact and I believe that's for the simple reason that obviously a principal who actually a principal in the first degree who actually broke into my house took my goat and then exited my house with the intent to permanently deprive me of my goat and my neighbor who drove the getaway car okay those are my principles in the first degree in principle in the second degree those two are the most culpable aren't they they're the most guilty and also Jimin who helped plan he didn't do anything to stop them from committing a crime he knew that a crime was about to be committed and he joyfully provided them with information so they could do it so those people yes I find them very guilty I find them to be it a problem now the accessory after the fact let's talk about Sally okay now she didn't know the crime was gonna be committed she didn't help plan the crime she didn't participate in the crime what she did was is she welcomed her friends into her home because she thought that she was helping them in some way so she might be slightly less culpable and because of that she will probably be punished less severely now in in a situation where they have actually murdered somebody and she helps dispose of the corpse that's a completely different situation and that accessory after the fact is somebody who's going to be held much more accountable and be punished more severely than somebody like Sally in my story who's helping to conceal a theft okay so that completed the party's portion of the lesson now we're going to move on to something called inchoate crimes what exactly is an inchoate crime well it's very simple it is a crime that just hasn't been completed so the the process of the crime has started you've planned it you're moving towards it but something happens and you aren't able to complete the crime now sometimes you're not able to complete the crime because something happens you are interrupted somehow by somebody or something maybe you're on your way to go rob a bank and there's a tornado and you can't get there because the weather is so bad okay or oftentimes you're trying to commit a crime you're getting ready to do it but the police are on to you and they have interrupted your crime now these laws the inchoate crime laws the whole point of them is so that law enforcement can intervene before you finish your terrible crime imagine if law enforcement had to wait till you finish doing something horrible before they could arrest you before they could do anything to stop you and before they could hold you accountable for what you intended to do so that's why these these laws exist they're there to give law enforcement that power to kind of step in and intervene without losing without risking the loss of getting their criminal convictions for what you actually intended to do now crimes have fallen to this inchoate category or attempt conspiracy and solicitation and we're going to go over each one first we're gonna go over attempt what is attempt I'm sure you've heard of this I'm sure you've heard oh well he was guilty of attempted murder what does that mean to you well it means he tried to kill somebody but he didn't quite do it so it was only attempted murder because the murder wasn't completed so attempt is an effort to commit a crime it goes beyond just preparing to do it it proceeds far enough that you can actually charge somebody with the crime and it's provable that they were actually going to complete whatever crime it was you charge them with so if you charge them with attempted murder it can't just be somebody who said yeah I was thinking about killing my neighbor that's not enough just somebody thinking about it is not enough we have to go a certain distance into the crime if you want to think of it that way so because there's this idea of hey can you really be charged with something you didn't complete yet that you just intended to do very early common law did not even recognize attempt crimes however in the late 1700s and early 1800s attempt crimes began to be recognized and of course today I mean that was a long time ago right the 1800s today attempt is recognized in every US state and for good for good reason right because just because somebody didn't finish their crime doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for it okay so what do you have to do to attempt to commit a crime first the defendant must intend to commit a crime you have to have that mental state right - the defendant must act they have to take some act in furtherance of that intent and the crime NEET cannot be completed if the crime is completed you would just charge them with that crime right why charge somebody with attempted murder if they've actually gone through with it and murdered somebody you're gonna charge them with murder and by the way there's this doctrine called merger right you can't if somebody has actually completed the murder you cannot charge them with both attempted murder and murder because attempted murder gets swallowed up by the whole idea of murder I hope that makes sense right it's just common sense you can't charge charge them with some somebody with attempting to do something when it's actually been completed so attempt definitely you have to have that third element where the crime has not been completed so I mentioned mental state you have to intend to commit a crime well what intent do you need well under the common law it had to be specific intent okay and the model Penal Code says you have to do something knowingly or purposely and all of the modern statutes say that attempt is indeed a crime some of them specifically identify what crime must be intended so there might be an actual attempted murder statute right an other 's just refer to an intent to commit a felony it's this all-encompassing very broad statute that says anytime you attempt to commit a felony whatever that felony is you can be held accountable for that okay so we talked about the mental state an attempt now let's talk about the actus Reyes now I mentioned before just thinking about murdering somebody that's not enough thoughts alone do not establish a crime of an attempt also mere preparation without anything further is not enough so if you're just sitting around and you're making notes to yourself about how you're going to steal my goat but you don't take any action or steps beyond that you're just thinking about it writing some notes maybe thinking about oh well how would you know I get into her house and you're just really kind of thinking about it and you're you're going so far you're preparing by taking notes maybe you've taken a couple of pictures of my house but not very many that's just not enough to get somebody on attempt right so how do we know when somebody has crossed the line how do we know when somebody has gone far enough that we can actually charge them with the crime of attempt well there are four commonly used tests to determine if an act is close enough to completion in order to permit an attempt conviction we're gonna go over each one of them now when any time you hear that there's four tests you know that the courts in the jurisdiction the courts in the jurisdictions across this country are generally split on this they all agree there should be some type of a test but many of them use different tests so of course you want to check your jurisdiction to see which tests that your jurisdiction follows so here's the four test there's the proximity test the race if so loquitur test the probable desist ins and then the model penal codes substantial steps test so each one of these tests is used in different courts and you can apply these tests and sometimes you could have the exact same situation and you apply one test and you say oh well that's definitely an attempt and if you apply one of the other tests you're like nope doesn't rise to the level of attempt so you can get a different outcome depending on which test that you use and some of them have a much lower bar than others so the first one is the proximity test and again these are all based on your actions that you have taken so the proximity test examines what acts have been taken what have you done toward the commission of this crime and which acts are left to be taken before you actually complete the crime so they kind of see how far along on the path of completing this crime you are well this is what they did to plan as far as stealing the goat okay this is how far they got and they needed to take five more steps before they got to completion of the crime or they needed to take one more step that's going to be up you see this is a judgment call right so the Supreme Court Justice Holmes said the test is there must be a dangerous proximity to success that means you've got to be awfully close right okay so that's the proximity test the next test is race EPS Eloqua Durr of course latin we couldn't have a legal lesson without some latin in it right so race oops elope Witter is also called the unequivocally test now what this does is it looks at the crimes individually it finds some act along the time line of that crime a certain point in time which indicates that the defendant has quote no other purpose than the commission of that specific crime so now the other one said you had to be in dangerous proximity right this one says you have to look at all of the actions that were taken and you have to come to the conclusion that there was no other purpose to those actions other than that this person was going to commit that specific crime okay so that is that test the race absolute litter test what about probable distance now probable desist ins focuses on the likelihood that the defendant would have followed through with the crime had the opportunity existed now this is a really sort of loose type of test it's basically saying yeah he would have done that if he had the opportunity to do it so it's not really looking at all of the actions that this person has taken like the other two tests it's more of saying yeah we think that there's a strong likelihood that he would have actually continued along this path and he would have actually committed the crime now I noted here in the second bullet point that critics have attacked this test is being arbitrary so this is the one that probably gets the most resistance from from critics and legal scholars in saying that this is a really difficult one to apply because how you know how do you know that the defendant would have followed through just if only he had had the opportunity so I'm not saying that this test doesn't exist it does exist it's just it's a little bit looser than the other ones and it's a little bit harder to define and quantify and the last test on our list is has been suggested by the model Penal Code it is called the substantial step and that's kind of a good explanation right you're taking substantial steps so what this looks at is if substantial steps have been taken toward the commission of a crime then one is guilty of attempt so you stopped to see what steps have you taken and were those substantial steps toward the commission of that crime now the conduct the acts that you take must strongly corroborate the actors criminal purpose so those acts that are taken must corroborate the mental state the mens rea a-- remember your criminal purpose okay so and actually the model Penal Code lists some examples so you can get an idea of a substantial step might be and they include such things as lying and wait that's you hiding in the bushes okay enticing or seeking to entice the victim that's you sort of luring somebody okay investigating the location of the planned crime that's used sitting outside for you know two weeks you know casing the joint as we call ready I'm you're sitting down you're like oh they arrived at ten o'clock in the morning and then they leave again at 3:00 p.m. and then you're taking lots of photos and it's it's a lot of surveillance right how about unlawfully entering a structure where the planned crime will happen that's you're doing like a test run I'm gonna break in and I'm gonna steal anything and I'm break-in and then yeah you're unlawfully entering instruction possession of material necessary to complete the crime you've got like duct tape and rope and all kinds of crazy nonsense a murder weapon those types of things if you have all of that in addition to some other things and if those strongly corroborate your criminal intent you might be in trouble okay possession collection or fabrication of materials to be in the crime fabrication needs to make something right you're actually making something that's gonna help you commit the crime we're actually soliciting someone to commit the crime for you that's whenever you ask somebody hey I'll give you $1,000 if you go stealing Yun's goat okay that's basically asking somebody to do it for you so under the model Penal Code those would all be considered substantial steps okay so what about defenses to attempt now of course you can see a lot of people want to bring up hey I didn't actually commit the crime I shouldn't be charged with this so there are some defenses that you can come up with one of them is abandonment okay if you voluntarily stop before you commit the crime it's all on you you've had a change of heart okay if you change your mind before you cross that line and remember that line is going to be determined by those four different tests and depending on what jurisdiction you're in it's gonna be one of the tests but you get the idea right so before you cross that line if you have a change of heart and you voluntarily abandon this whole idea that you've had that is a defense and it's called abandonment now and it must be voluntary it can't be could be because you got caught and that's why you stopped okay has to be completely voluntary another defense is legal impossibility this is where a defendant actually believes that they're doing something illegal so let's pretend you think that going to the movies is illegal and you go through all these preparations like you get all dressed you get in your car you drive to the movie theater you get to the parking lot you're acting all sneaky because in your mind it's totally illegal to go to the movies and then you walk up to the movie but you stop because you're like I can't go in there that's breaking the law and then you walk back to your car you cannot be charged with attempted going to the movies because that's not a crime so you can't prosecute somebody for a crime that doesn't exist that is called a legal impossibility you were not trying to do something illegal okay now factual impossibility okay this is when a person attempts to commit a crime but it's impossible to do so because there's some sort of factual error so my example is that you believed that you were selling illegal drugs but instead you were selling fake drugs like you were selling catnip so you were intending to do something illegal which was to sell illegal drugs and let's pretend you're in a state where it's illegal to sell marijuana right so you think that you are selling marijuana you think that you were doing something illegal and it actually is illegal but the factual impossibility is that you're not actually selling marijuana you're selling catnip you don't know that because you're silly in some way you think that catnip and marijuana are the same thing you can still get charged with that because factual possibility is not a defense because you had an evil intent you believed that you were committing a crime that actually exists it just there was some fact about it that made it impossible and therefore that's not a defense you can't say oh but it was catnip no you had the requisite mental state you had the intent to commit an actual crime okay so we're all done with the tempt so now we're going to move on to conspiracy conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act in an unlawful manner okay so you just need two people or more and you need to come to an agreement that's all it is and I'm sure you hear conspiracy all the time and you often hear it like conspiracy to commit murder or conspiracy to distribute narcotics something like that okay now you have to have at least two people now there is an exception to conspiracy and it is called Wharton's rule it's also called the concert of action rule two people cannot be charged with conspiracy when the underlying offense itself requires two people so I've put two examples here gambling you cannot gamble by yourself you need another individual to gamble with okay so the crime of gambling requires two people because the crime itself requires two people you two didn't enter into a conspiracy to gamble you just gambled it's the same with adultery if to pee it takes two people to commit adultery so because the underlying offense itself requires two people you cannot charge people to people with conspiracy because it's just simply adultery now so just remember conspiracy is reserved for those crimes where generally it only takes one individual to commit the crime stealing my goat only takes one person okay when two or more people enter into an agreement to steal my goat now there's a conspiracy to steal my goat okay now there is one limitation on Wharton's rule okay if three people conspire to gamble there can be a conspiracy charge because it only takes two people to gamble you see that slight difference there so there's only two people in the crime you're just gambling but if there's three and you're all agreeing to gamble now we can actually have a conspiracy to gamble because gambling itself only requires two people it only takes two people does that make sense I hope so okay so let's move on to the actus Reyes what actions do you have to take in order to commit a conspiracy well it's simply the agreement when you enter into the green agreement the crime is complete so in some jurisdiction the agreement is enough and then others you must have you must have what is called an overt act which would be an act taken in furtherance of the objective of the agreement okay so many jurisdictions and you have to check which one yours falls into it's just the agreement itself and then the crime is complete the conspiracy is complete and other states require the agreement plus sum over app now even though an attempt remember I said mere preparation was not enough to charge you with attempt it is sufficient in many jurisdictions to charge conspiracy because all you need is the agreement which would be part of the preparation all right so we understand what the Act is it's the agreement plus some overt act what about your mental state what mental state do you have to be in to be can you know in a conspiracy well you have to have the intent to commit an unlawful act or you have to have the intent to commit some sort of lawful act but do it in an unlawful manner okay now conspirators must have the intent to enter into an agreement plus they also have to have a specific intent to commit some unlawful inject objective so you have to have both those things they have to intend to enter into the agreement with the other people and they have to possess a specific intent to commit an unlawful objective now just an important side note when you when it comes to conspiracies there are some crimes that if you just do them by yourself they might only lead to civil penalties they might actually rise to the level of something criminal however if you do it in a group it may rise to the level of a criminal charge and one example would be fraud there are some types of fraud where that just might result in civil penalties and they're not they don't rise to the level of being criminal but if a group of you get together then all of a sudden it becomes a crime and you can enter into a conceit that can be a conspiracy and it it is a more serious charge then okay so now intent in conspiracy is very strictly construed okay so because of that both mistake of law and fact our defenses remember before we said mistake of fact was not a defense when we were talking about attempt but in conspiracy it is because your intent is very important so they're looking at everything very closely so the parties must have had an evil purpose for their union so if the parties believe that their actions and their purpose were illegal they would have a valid defense okay so if they thought they were doing something if you and three other people all get together and you agree to do something that you wholeheartedly believe that it is something legal to do but it turns out it's actually against the law that can actually be a defense because your intent is very important you had to have an evil purpose so that's what they're looking at now if you withdraw from an ongoing conspiracy it is not a defense remember you could an attempt you could abandon and that was a defense it doesn't work that way in conspiracy because the crime was complete once the agreement was was made so as soon as you made the agreement you're done you've committed conspiracy okay unless you're in one of those jurisdictions that requires an overt act if you've done the agreement and you haven't yet committed the overt act you could withdraw in that jurisdiction and you would be okay but if you've already committed the overt act you're done you cannot quit after that you've all read the crime has been completed at that point okay and just note that the model Penal Code does recognize voluntary withdrawal as an affirmative defense and but it has to fall into that category where you're in between the agreement and the overt act okay some special procedural notes when it comes to conspiracy conspiracy itself is a crime all by itself you don't need to have anything else with it it is completely independent of what you were conspiring to do that illegal thing that you were conspiring to do because of that it is not a violation of the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy prohibition where you can't charge somebody twice for the same crime right you can charge conspiracy you can charge conspiracy to commit murder and you could also charge murder okay it is possible to have both and it is possible to punish individuals for both of those things because conspiracy is a completely separate crime for murder because the crime is complete once the agreement is made and if you're in a jurisdiction that requires an overt act agreement plus overt act okay now conspiracy is inchoate meaning it is not completed because conspiracy can still be charged even if the underlying criminal objective was not met you can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder and never actually commit the murder because of that it falls into this category of an inchoate crime now this one is really interesting procedurally if only two people are charged and one is acquitted which means found not guilty then the other cannot be punished remember it takes two to be at a conspiracy so if one person is found not guilty then the other person cannot be charged or it cannot be punished for conspiracy because one of the members the conspiracy has been found not guilty and if you have a group of people let's say five people that are charged and the jury finds not guilty for all but two those two people the conviction that still stands all right additional procedural notes co-conspirators can be tried together now a lot of people think that this prejudice is the defendant because one person may be more guilty in a sense than the other because they've done more in terms of the crime and so when the jury looks at both these people sitting together they think oh guilt by association so this there's this strong argument a very good argument actually that it could prejudice that defendant however procedurally it is perfectly permissible to try co-conspirators together and then there's this special co-conspirator hearsay rule now you guys know that hearsay or out-of-court statements you know one person said if you don't have that person in court to either verify what they said you cannot introduce those statements but in a co-conspirator situation on the evidence of statements of one party that are made that are made out of court can be admitted and one party meaning one of the co-conspirators they can be admitted under this co-conspirator hearsay exception okay the rule is limited to statements made during the planning and the commission of the conspiracy so they can anything they said during that time that can be introduced at trial by somebody who heard them say that and some statements that they may have made any statement made after the planning and the commission of the conspiracy are completed that's all inadmissible still okay so that completes conspiracy and now we're just gonna have one slide here on solicitation because there's not much to say about solicitation it's simply the encouraging requesting or commanding of another person to commit a crime that's where you try to hire somebody to do your crime for you okay your mental state you have to have specific intent the defendant must intend to convince another to commit that offense and the act is just the solicitation itself it's it's you saying hey I'm gonna give you ten thousand dollars if you go you know do this terrible thing for me okay and it can be for any crime it doesn't matter what it is now a few states will limit it to felonies but in a lot of states you can also solicit somebody to commit a misdemeanor for you and solicitation differs from attempt in that solicitation itself is a crime and you don't need to do anything in furtherance of the crime you simply just need to ask hey will you do this terrible thing for me if I give you ten thousand dollars that's it that's all you need to do there doesn't need to have to be anything else no substantial steps no dangerous proximity right that's how it differs from attempt and that you're simply just simply asking the question the solicitation itself is all that you need to have committed this crime okay well that is it for today's lesson I hope that it was helpful I hope that you learned some things and if you enjoyed this I hope you check out some of my other videos and as always I really appreciate it when you like and subscribe and I guess that's all I have for today so you have a wonderful rest of your day thank you