The Fence, the Shed, and the Wrong Night
Nina and her cousin Eli plan to take copper wire from a construction site. They agree to go 'when it's dark and quiet.' On Tuesday at 10 p.m., Nina arrives alone, climbs a fence, and enters a locked shed by forcing the door. She finds no wire, takes a drill instead, and leaves. Eli stayed home because he had a sore throat. On Wednesday, Eli learns what Nina did and says nothing to police. The shed is on private property within a fenced compound. Nina had no idea the shed was locked until she tried the door. The drill is worth 300 dollars. The jurisdiction requires that a co-conspirator take some step in furtherance of the agreement to be liable, and that withdrawal be communicated.
1. Assess Nina's liability for burglary and theft of the drill.
Read the worked answer
Burglary requires entry into a building or structure with intent to commit a crime inside. Nina entered the shed by forcing the door, and the shed is a structure within a fenced compound. The timing matters: she intended to take copper wire, which is itself a crime, so she had intent to commit a crime at the moment of entry. The fact that no wire was there does not matter; the intent, not the success, is the element.
The forced door supplies the entry, and the locked shed confirms it was a protected structure rather than open land.
Theft of the drill: Nina took a drill she had not planned to take. The actus reus is satisfied, and the mens rea at the moment of taking was to deprives the owner permanently, since she carried it away with no plan to return it. The change of target from wire to drill does not defeat theft; the intent formed at the shed is enough.
Conclusion: Nina is likely liable for burglary of the shed and theft of the drill. The exam point is that the intended crime at entry can differ from the crime actually committed inside.
2. Assess Eli's liability as a co-conspirator and whether his inaction after Wednesday constitutes withdrawal.
Read the worked answer
Eli agreed with Nina to take copper wire, which is an agreement to commit theft. That agreement is the actus reus of conspiracy, and his intent to participate supplies the mens rea. The agreement was formed before Tuesday, so conspiracy liability attaches at the agreement, subject to the jurisdiction's requirement of an overt act.
The overt-act requirement: the jurisdiction requires some step in furtherance. Nina's Tuesday entry is a step by a co-conspirator, and acts of one conspirator in furtherance are generally attributable to the others. Eli's sore throat kept him home, but non-participation on the night does not undo the agreement.
Withdrawal: to withdraw, a conspirator must communicate the withdrawal to the other parties before the crime and take steps to neutralize the plan. Eli did nothing until Wednesday, after the crime. Learning of the crime afterward and staying silent is not withdrawal; it is at most concealment, which is a separate issue.
Conclusion: Eli likely remains liable for conspiracy. His silence after the fact does not erase the earlier agreement. The exam point is that withdrawal must be communicated before the crime, not after.