⚡ 10-Second Rule
Seriously asking someone to commit a crime is itself a crime the moment you ask.
🧒 ELI-10 Scene
Ava is mad at a classmate. At lunch she whispers to her big brother, "I'll give you my dessert for a week if you trip him in the hallway." Her brother frowns and says, "No way," and walks off. Nobody got tripped. Nobody even tried. Is Ava in the clear? Not with Principal Diaz. The asking was the whole offense. The second those words left Ava's mouth, meaning them, she crossed the line — her brother's answer never mattered.
⚖️ Actual Rule
At common law, solicitation is asking, encouraging, advising, or commanding another person to commit a crime, with the specific intent that the person commit it. The offense is complete at the moment of the request; no agreement, no response, and no step toward the crime is required, and the solicitee's refusal is irrelevant. The Model Penal Code § 5.02 reaches the same conduct and treats even an uncommunicated solicitation as the completed offense (paraphrased). Solicitation merges upward: if the solicitee agrees, the solicitation merges into conspiracy; if the crime is attempted or completed, it merges into the attempt or the completed offense, and the solicitor is liable for that crime as an accomplice. On renunciation the law splits: the common law recognizes no defense once the ask is made, while MPC § 5.02(3) provides an affirmative defense where the solicitor completely and voluntarily renounces and persuades the solicitee not to act or otherwise prevents the crime (paraphrased).
[NJ-VARIANT: flagged for future Eli Explains NJ Law module] ELI-10 translation: the moment you sincerely ask for a crime, you have already committed one.
🔍 Ask These Questions
- Did the defendant ask, encourage, or command someone to commit a crime? (Did they try to recruit another person for the bad deed?)
- Did the defendant have specific intent that the crime actually be committed? (Were they serious, not joking or venting?)
- Was the request made at all? Then the crime is already complete. (The ask finishes the crime — no yes, no action needed.)
- Did the solicitee agree, try, or succeed? (If yes, the charge climbs the ladder — conspiracy, attempt, or the finished crime — and solicitation folds in.)
- Did the solicitor renounce, and does the jurisdiction allow it? (Taking it back only works in MPC-style places, and only by truly stopping the crime.)
⚠️ Bar Trap
Exam language: Examiners have the solicitee flatly refuse, report the solicitor to police, or turn out to be an undercover officer, then offer answer choices excusing the solicitor because the crime was never agreed to, attempted, or completed. Refusal is no defense: solicitation was complete the instant the request was made with the requisite intent. The companion trap runs the other way — once the solicitee agrees or acts, charging solicitation alongside the conspiracy or completed crime ignores merger.
ELI-10: The "no" from the other person never saves the asker. But if the other person says "yes" and the plan moves, the asking charge disappears into the bigger one.
🧪 Question
The owner of a struggling taqueria became convinced that a rival food truck parked across the street was destroying her business. She approached her neighbor, a former demolition worker, and offered him $2,000 in cash to set fire to the food truck that weekend while it sat empty in a storage lot. The neighbor refused, telephoned the police, and gave a full statement. The owner was arrested and charged with solicitation to commit arson in a common-law jurisdiction.
Should the owner be convicted?
(A) No, because the neighbor refused and no arson was ever attempted. (B) No, because the owner took no substantial step toward burning the food truck. (C) Yes, because she requested the arson with the intent that it be committed. (D) Yes, but only if the prosecution proves the neighbor seriously considered the offer.
Answer: (C). The owner urged another to commit arson and backed the request with $2,000, showing genuine intent that the crime occur. Solicitation was complete when the words were spoken; the neighbor's refusal and the absence of any fire are irrelevant.
💡 Why the Wrong Answers Are Wrong
- (A) treats refusal and non-completion as defenses, but solicitation is complete at the ask and requires no result.
- (B) imports attempt's substantial-step element into solicitation, which requires no act beyond the intentional request itself.
- (D) adds a nonexistent element; the solicitee's state of mind and receptiveness play no part in the solicitor's guilt.
- ELI-10: The misconception is waiting for something to happen after the ask. Nothing has to happen — the sincere ask was the whole crime.
