Ben may be charged with conspiracy to commit grand larceny. At issue is whether Ben entered into an agreement to commit the underlying crime. In order for a conspiracy to have been committed, there must be an agreement by two or more parties to commit a crime, with knowledge by each one and specific intent. From there, at least one of the parties to the agreement must commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy within five years of the agreement. In this instance, it appears that Ben has agreed to commit the crime, and took part in the planning. He had knowledge that a conspiracy was afoot. Likewise, someone in the agreement made an overt act. Ben may argue that he is not guilty of conspiracy because he did not follow through the crime, and in fact, backed out. This is immaterial however, because the rule states only that someone in the agreement must commit the overt act.

For this reason, it can be concluded that Ben should be charged with conspiracy.Ben may be charged with driving under the influence, with enhancements for physical harm caused. At issue is whether he was drunk. In order for a person to be guilty of DUI, he must be operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. This is typically defined by the person’s blood alcohol content, though it does not have to be. In this case, the man appears to have gotten into his vehicle after drinking heavily. Likewise, the fact that he ran a red light may help establish his bodily state. He may argue that because he was drunk, he did not have the intent of killing the woman. While this is true, it is immaterial. He intended to drink the alcohol, and DUI statutes do not require that one intend to commit harm in order for them to be held responsible. For this reason, he can be charged with DUI.

Charges Against Carl
The same analysis for conspiracy applies above, as Carl would also be able to face charges as a conspirator.
Carl may be charged with grand larceny in this situation. In order for one to be guilty of larceny, there must a taking of someone else’s property, and a carrying away of that property with the intent to deprive a person of the use or enjoyment of the property. In this instance, it is clear that Carl took the diamonds, and carried them from their place on the boat. One can infer that he also carried them off of the boat. He intended to keep them for himself. He has no defenses to this crime given the facts that have been presented. Because of this analysis, Carl may be charged with larceny.
Carl may be charged with murder, or in the alternative, felony-murder. According to the felony-murder rule, if a person kills another person during the commission of a robbery, then they are guilty of felony-murder, which is a first-degree murder in most circumstances. According to the rule, there is a rebuttable presumption that when one kills during the commission of a felony, one has acted with recklessness and disregard for life. In this case, it is clear that a person was killed during the commission of a felony. Carl may argue that he did not go in with the intention of committing a murder. Even if this is true, it does not excuse him from the felony-murder rule, which does not require one to have malice aforethought.

Charges Against Arthur
Arthur may also be charged with conspiracy, as mentioned above.
Arthur may be charged with felony-murder. The same facts and analysis apply as in the case of Carl. Arthur, however, will argue that he did not pull the trigger, and that he did not know there was a gun involved. The law does not require that one have this specific knowledge, however. Arthur knew that a violent felony was going to be committed in the form of robbery. The law assumes that if a person understands this, then the person knows of the risks that go along with committing that crime. In addition, the law of parties in most states will mean that even if the defendant did not pull the trigger, he can be charged with this crime. Because of these factors, he can be charged with murder.