Article 105 of the Penal Law of New York contains the conspiracy of crime. There are various elements of conspiracy of crime in the historical statute of New York. First, the must be an agreement of persons in a contract to perform unlawful or illegal action. A conspiracy of crime is valid if different parties agree to carry out unlawful action. For example, in Mulcahy v R (1868) case, there was an evident of presence of an agreement between different persons. If the agreement is not present, the conspiracy of crime is invalid, and no conviction occur on the conspiracy. For example, in R v Thomson (1966), the charge failed due to lack of agreement between people to undertake unlawful action.
Secondly, for the conspiracy case to be valid, the prosecution must give a clear evidence of the intention of various parties to join in the agreement for the purpose of carrying out a criminal activity. A case on conspiracy of crime can only be valid if there are clear intentions of parties involved either. Therefore, the conspiracy incorporates criminal liability according to the person’s intention.
In the current Penal law, there are four main elements of conspiracy. To begin with, the actus Reus of conspiracy is present when an agreement by parties to carry out unlawful action is made. This means that, even if the planned action of the involved parties does not occur, parties are liable for committing conspiracy of crime (Gupta, 2013).
The main purpose of their agreement must be clearly identified during the jurisdiction of the cases. The prosecution must highlight the main purpose of the agreement. If the purpose of the agreement is harmful to the public or cause fraud, the valid charge can be provided in the court of laws. In addition, conspiracy can also happen when there is unlawful purpose of the agreement, but the means applied in action is illegal (Harding, 1982).
The overt act is greatly necessary in charging the conspiracy of crime. For