Under New York law, which statement is true about impossibility as a defense to conspiracy?

Under New York law, which statement is true about impossibility as a defense to conspiracy?

• A. Factual impossibility is a defense
• B. Legal impossibility is a defense
• C. Both are defenses
• D. Neither is a defense

Answer: (D)

Impossibility is not a defense to conspiracy because the crime lies in forming the plan and the intent to achieve a criminal objective, not in actually achieving it. Under New York law, the elements of conspiracy focus on an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime and the intent to bring it about, with at least one overt act in furtherance. Whether the planned act could actually be completed—factually or legally impossible—does not erase the conspiratorial agreement or the intent to pursue the unlawful objective. That’s why neither factual nor legal impossibility provides a defense to conspiracy. The result is liability based on the pact and purpose, not on the plan’s ultimate feasibility.

Impossibility is not a defense to conspiracy because the crime lies in forming the plan and the intent to achieve a criminal objective, not in actually achieving it. Under New York law, the elements of conspiracy focus on an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime and the intent to bring it about, with at least one overt act in furtherance. Whether the planned act could actually be completed—factually or legally impossible—does not erase the conspiratorial agreement or the intent to pursue the unlawful objective. That’s why neither factual nor legal impossibility provides a defense to conspiracy. The result is liability based on the pact and purpose, not on the plan’s ultimate feasibility.