💕
Criminal Law • Preliminary Crimes
CRIMLAW#055
Legal Definition
Mere preparation to commit a crime is insufficient. The defendant must commit an act or omission that constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime that strongly corroborates the defendant's purpose.
Plain English Explanation
As you've learned, crimes generally have elements that define them. You can imagine a crime as being a series of dominos. Though it may require all the dominos to tip over in order for a defendant to be guilty of a crime, attempt only requires some of the dominos to be tipped over and enough evidence to show that the goal was to tip them all. In other words, if a person just thinks or plans to commit a crime, but never gets beyond their whiteboard, it is a bit premature to say they attempted anything.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob's having a bad day. He decides he wants to burn down an orphanage. Bob carefully packs up an assortment of fuels, some gloves, and various lighters, then drives down to his town's orphanage. Bob finds a back corner of the building and pours a gallon of fuel on it. Bob tries to light it on fire, but his lighter won't spark. A police officer driving by notices what Bob is doing and arrests him. Result: It wouldn't be fair to charge Bob with arson, because he didn't burn anything. However, it definitely wouldn't be fair to let Bob go free, because he's clearly a threat to society. Luckily, he can be charged with attempted arson.
Hypo 2: Same facts as Hypo 1, except Bob never makes it to the orphanage. Instead, he is pulled over by police 100 yards from the orphanage. Police find all of Bob's supplies and a chat log on Bob's phone where he tells his friend he'll be back for dinner after he burns down the orphanage. Result: These acts arguably constitute a substantial step towards burning the orphanage down and the evidence strongly corroborates Bob's intent. As such, though Bob isn't guilty of arson, he is still guilty of attempted arson.
Hypo 2: Same facts as Hypo 1, except Bob never makes it to the orphanage. Instead, he is pulled over by police 100 yards from the orphanage. Police find all of Bob's supplies and a chat log on Bob's phone where he tells his friend he'll be back for dinner after he burns down the orphanage. Result: These acts arguably constitute a substantial step towards burning the orphanage down and the evidence strongly corroborates Bob's intent. As such, though Bob isn't guilty of arson, he is still guilty of attempted arson.
Related Concepts
Does merger exist for conspiracy related crimes?
How can a participant of a conspiracy effectively withdraw?
How does factual impossibility affect attempt?
How does factual impossibility affect conspiracy?
How does legal impossibility affect attempt?
How does legal impossibility affect conspiracy?
In assessing the crime of attempt, what is merger?
In assessing the crime of solicitation, what is merger?
Under conspiracy, what constitutes an agreement?
What is attempt?
What is conspiracy?
What is solicitation?
What is the liability for co-conspirators' crimes?
What is Wharton's Rule?
What type of intent is required for attempt?
