Which statement best distinguishes criminal solicitation from conspiracy?

• A. Solicitation can be proven without a completed agreement, while conspiracy requires a plan and overt act.
• B. Solicitation requires an agreement between two or more people.
• C. Conspiracy can be charged without any agreement.
• D. Both require the other person to commit the crime.

Answer: (A)

The essential distinction is that soliciting a crime is the act of urging or inviting someone else to commit the offense, and it does not require any agreement or even that the other person intends to go through with it. Conspiracy, by contrast, rests on a genuine agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, and is typically accompanied by an overt act in furtherance of that agreement.

So solicitation can be proven even if no agreement ever forms and even if the other person refuses or never intends to commit the crime. Conspiracy requires that two or more persons share the criminal intent and plan, and usually an overt act moves the plan toward execution.

That is why the correct statement says solicitation can be proven without a completed agreement, while conspiracy requires a plan and an overt act. The other options misstate the requirements for one or the other offense, such as implying solicitation needs an agreement, or that conspiracy can exist without any agreement, or that both must rely on the other person actually committing the crime.