Serena Essapour has discovered some information regarding Criminal Law III Summer Qtr 2010 Week 1 Attempts and shared in the form of PPT here.

1. Criminal Law III Summer QtrCriminal Law III Summer Qtr
2010 Week 1 Attempts2010 Week 1 Attempts
John C. Schick
jschick@humphrey.edu
jcschick@earthlink.net
209.235.2937
Serena Essapour

2. AttemptsAttempts
 Is there a justification for punishing someone
who does not do a completed crime, that is
cause actual social harm?
What is the historical basis for this crime?

3. Is the “evil mind” a basis?Is the “evil mind” a basis?
If a person clearly INTENDS to do a crime
and cause social harm, we may need a
device to stop that act and to punish it.
But this makes the mental state connected
to the crime of attempt all important.
Note that we have imposed the requirement
of specific intent to do the act as a
prerequisite.

4. People v. GentryPeople v. Gentry
Gentry is convicted for the crime of attempted
murder.
He had spilled gasoline on his girlfriend and
her body caught fire.
He apparently put out the fire, after she had
been severely burned.
Court’s instructions on homicide covered all
categories of that crime.

5. Gentry, concludedGentry, concluded
This lumping together meant that some forms
of non-intentional homicide were part of the
possible verdicts.
These categories included intent, knowledge,
recklessness and negligence.
An attempt requires the specific intent to do
the target crime.
Thus the instructions were too broad and the
conviction must be reversed.

6. Bruce v. StateBruce v. State
 Bruce is convicted of attempted felony
murder, since he pointed a gun at another
person during a robbery.
While pointing the gun, he told the person he
would kill him.
Bruce shoots but does not kill Tensor.

7. Bruce, continuedBruce, continued
Bruce argues that the felony murder rule
only requires intent to do the felony plus a
killing during the commission or attempted
commission of the felony.
An accidental killing still allows for the
person to be convicted of homicide given
the theoretical basis of the FMR.

8. Bruce, concludedBruce, concluded
Again, it is to be noted that criminal attempt is a
specific intent crime.
A conviction for felony murder on the other
hand does not require any specific intent to kill.
Thus it would be error to say that an attempt to
kill that is not guided by a legal definition that
shows specific intent to kill is wrong.
The conviction is reversed.

9. The two intents nature of anThe two intents nature of an
attemptattempt
First the actor must intentionally do the act.
The act cannot be accidental or unplanned.
This satisfies the actus reus prong.
Secondly, the actor must do this act with the
specific intent of doing the substantive
crime. This would be the mens rea.

10. California law on the topicCalifornia law on the topic
CAL CRIM 460 To show an attempt, the
people must prove that the defendant took a
direct but ineffective step toward
committing the target offense.
Also, the state must prove that the
defendant intended to commit the target
offense.

11. United States v. MandujanoUnited States v. Mandujano
Court notes that mere preparation does not
equate with an attempt to do a crime.
But formulating a rule is not that easy.
Court notes that a traditional way to look at this
area was to note if the actor has done all that
he/she can do short of the crime, but in some
way is interrupted by outside forces.

12. Mandujano, concludedMandujano, concluded
But courts now avoid this test and look to
whether or not the crime put in progress
would be consummated, but for some
outside intervention.

13. Aid to understandingAid to understanding
AttemptsAttempts
1) Did D intend to commit the crime?
2) Was what D did wrong in itself?
3) Was it impossible for D to commit the crime?
4) Did D use an appropriate method?
5) Was D’s act preparatory or perpetrating?
6) Was D’s act too remote to be considered?
7) Was D’s conduct sufficiently blameworthy to
merit punishment?

14. Commonwealth v. PeasleeCommonwealth v. Peaslee
Peaslee was planning to burn a building.
He set it up so that if one item had been
lighted, the building would burn.
He asked an employee to help.
The employee refused.
Peaslee then changes his mind before he gets to
the building.

15. Peaslee, cont.Peaslee, cont.
Holmes says that merely collecting items that
would do the crime is not enough.
There must be a present intent to do the crime,
without much delay.
The act of soliciting the employee would add
substance to the charge.
As worded, the pleading is not enough.

16. People v. RizzoPeople v. Rizzo
Rizzo is convicted of attempted robbery.
Court has no doubt that Rizzo intended to do
the crime if he had the chance.
His crime partners were looking for the
payroll clerk, without success.

17. Rizzo, concludedRizzo, concluded
While they are still trying to find the clerks, the
cops intervene and arrest them.
Court notes that there must be dangerous
proximity to success, or an act that is very near
to the accomplishment of the crime.
The absence of these elements means the
conviction must be reversed.

18. People v. MillerPeople v. Miller
Defendant convicted of attempted murder.
Evidence showed that Miller walked towards
the location of possible victim with rifle, but
never raised it to point at victim.
Because these acts are equivocal, the
conviction is reversed.

21. State v. ReevesState v. Reeves
Two 12 year old girls devise a plot to kill a
teacher.
They bring rat poison to class but never put
it in her cup.
Tennessee case law required some
substantial overt act beyond the mere
preparation present in an attempt.

22. Reeves, concludedReeves, concluded
But the legislature passed a new law as part of a
code revision in 1989.
Consequently, there is a less rigid requirement
for the “substantial” act that needs to be done.
Thus the court affirms the conviction.

23. United States v. AlkhabazUnited States v. Alkhabaz
Federal law made it a crime to communicate
threats via interstate commerce.
Defendant had communicated very explicit
stories about acts of violence he might do and
named explicitly a real victim who was a
student at his school.

24. Alkhabaz, continuedAlkhabaz, continued
The majority concludes that these messages,
between two e-mail correspondents, did not
have the element of purpose or a goal (intent)
They feel this element is a part of the full
definition of threat, the word used in the
language of the statute.

25. Alkhabaz, concludedAlkhabaz, concluded
Majority affirm the dismissal because they feel
the element of purpose for stating the words is
missing in this instance.
Dissent states that the words are a threat pure
and simple and that is enough for a conviction.
Note the dictionary definition of threat quoted
by the dissent.

26. Thank You
Serena Essapour