New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 105.30 (2026)

Conspiracy; no defense

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 105.30 Conspiracy; no defense.
  It is no defense to a prosecution for conspiracy that, owing to
criminal irresponsibility or other legal incapacity or exemption, or to
unawareness of the criminal nature of the agreement or the object
conduct or of the defendant's criminal purpose or to other factors
precluding the mental state required for the commission of conspiracy or
the object crime, one or more of the defendant's co-conspirators could
not be guilty of conspiracy or the object crime.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case: Com. v. James, J, 297 A.3d 755 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Com. v. James, J, 297 A.3d 755 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023). · cites it 2× “cannot be prosecuted for any reason”);” N.Y. Penal Law § 105.30 (reflecting that “[i]t is no defense to a prosecution for conspiracy that .”

The People v. Kevin Fisher, 71 N.E.3d 932 (NY 2017). “Defendant seeks to distinguish these cases on the ground that the statutes for those crimes expressly provide that acquittal is no defense (Penal Law §§ 105.30, 115.10, 20.05). We are unpersuaded.”

United States v. Wilson, 565 F. Supp. 1416 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). “2d 1155 , 1162 (1977) (attempted murder); N.Y.Penal Law § 105.30 (McKinney 1975) (conspiracy); People v.”

People v. Hilliard, 49 A.D.3d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). “nder the unilateral approach to conspiracy adopted in this state, whether the other coconspirators knew the intended victim’s identity from the outset or *913 when, if ever, there was a “meeting of the minds” on that point (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 149 [2005]; People v…”

People v. Harsit, 193 Misc. 2d 680 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002). · cites it 3× “Defendant’s argument focuses on Urtis’ role and that of Aliuddin, instead of viewing the situation from defendant’s peculiar vantage point, his specific intent, and his knowledge.”

People v. Sadacca, 128 Misc. 2d 494 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985). “The new formulation of culpability standards emphasizes the defendant’s state of mind and individual perception and deemphasizes factors extraneous to the defendant’s perception or control, such as the feigned complicity of supposed accomplices (People v Schwimmer, 47 NY2d, at p…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.