A foreign diplomat and a woman are charged with conspiracy to commit burglary. The diplomat asserts diplomatic immunity and is dismissed. Should the court grant the woman's motion to dismiss the conspiracy charge?

A foreign diplomat and a woman are charged with conspiracy to commit burglary. The diplomat asserts diplomatic immunity and is dismissed. Should the court grant the woman's motion to dismiss the conspiracy charge?

• A. Yes, because the diplomat's immunity negates the conspiracy.
• B. No, because Model Penal Code unilateral conspiracy allows conviction regardless of the diplomat's immunity.
• C. Yes, because diplomatic immunity shields all co-conspirators.
• D. No, because conspiracy requires two guilty parties.

Answer: (B)

The key idea is unilateral conspiracy under the Model Penal Code. Under this view, a defendant can be convicted of conspiracy even if the other party to the agreement cannot be charged or is immune. The crime rests on the existence of a conspiratorial agreement and the defendant’s intent to join that plan, not on the other person’s accountability. Here, the diplomat’s immunity means he cannot be prosecuted, but it does not erase the fact that a burglary conspiracy existed between him and the woman. Because she knowingly joined in the plan, she can be held liable for conspiracy even though the diplomat is immune. The immunity affects only the diplomat’s status as a charged or prosecutable co-conspirator, not the liability of the other conspirator under unilateral conspiracy. So the court should not grant the woman’s motion to dismiss the conspiracy charge. The diplomat’s immunity does not prevent the remaining conspirator from being convicted. The other options either overstate immunity (shielding all co-conspirators) or rely on the traditional two-party requirement, which the MPC does not require in unilateral conspiracy.

The key idea is unilateral conspiracy under the Model Penal Code. Under this view, a defendant can be convicted of conspiracy even if the other party to the agreement cannot be charged or is immune. The crime rests on the existence of a conspiratorial agreement and the defendant’s intent to join that plan, not on the other person’s accountability.

Here, the diplomat’s immunity means he cannot be prosecuted, but it does not erase the fact that a burglary conspiracy existed between him and the woman. Because she knowingly joined in the plan, she can be held liable for conspiracy even though the diplomat is immune. The immunity affects only the diplomat’s status as a charged or prosecutable co-conspirator, not the liability of the other conspirator under unilateral conspiracy.

So the court should not grant the woman’s motion to dismiss the conspiracy charge. The diplomat’s immunity does not prevent the remaining conspirator from being convicted. The other options either overstate immunity (shielding all co-conspirators) or rely on the traditional two-party requirement, which the MPC does not require in unilateral conspiracy.