839, 843 (1978). Since the statute requires that abandonment occur after the “prohibited conduct” of the charged offense but before the “underlying crime,” the underlying crime cannot be the same as the charged offense. For attempt, the “underlying crime” is the crime that is attempted. See, e.g., Smith, 636 N.E.2d at 127 (criminal deviate conduct); Sheckles, 501 N.E.2d at 1055 (robbery); Woodford, 488 N.E.2d at 1124-25 (rape). For conspiracy, the “underlying crime” is the offense the conspirators agreed to commit. See, e.g., Babin v. State, 609 N.E.2d 3, 4-5 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (murder), trans. denied. By abandoning the underlying crime before it occurs or becomes inevitable, the defendant detaches the charged offense from the crime it’s “hitched” to. See Smith, 636 N.E.2d at 127 (<HOLDING>); Webster’s Third New International Dictionary
recognizing attempt and conspiracy as inchoate crimes recognizing rule recognizing this as the general rule holding that amended note 12 applies to choate as well as inchoate offenses holding that code  18218 directs that an accessory before the fact is accountable in all respects as the principal who carries out the intended crime as well as any of its natural probable and incidental crimes