Attempt in Criminal Law
⚖️ Attempt in Criminal Law
What Is Attempt?
Attempt is an inchoate offense in criminal law. It means that a person intends to commit a crime and takes substantial steps towards its commission, but ultimately fails to complete the crime.
The crime of attempt punishes the dangerousness of the intent and the steps taken, even if the harm or result is not completed.
It is based on the idea of preventing harm before it happens.
Elements of Criminal Attempt
To prove attempt, the prosecution must generally establish two core elements:
1. Intent (Mens Rea)
The defendant must have a specific intent to commit the underlying crime.
This is usually a purposeful desire to bring about a criminal result.
2. Overt Act or Substantial Step (Actus Reus)
The defendant must have taken a clear step toward committing the crime.
Mere preparation is not enough; the act must go beyond preparation and show a direct movement toward the commission.
Distinguishing Preparation and Attempt
Preparation: Planning or arranging means, but no immediate step taken toward committing the crime.
Attempt: Actions that strongly corroborate the intent and show movement towards the crime.
Why Punish Attempt?
To deter and punish dangerous conduct that comes close to causing harm.
To allow law enforcement intervention before the actual crime occurs.
Case Law on Attempt
📌 R v. Eagleton (1845)
Facts: Defendant took steps preparing for burglary but was arrested before entering the building.
Holding: Courts held that merely preparing is not an attempt.
Significance: Established the principle that attempt requires more than preparation; an act beyond preparation is necessary.
📌 People v. Rizzo (1927)
Facts: Defendants planned to rob a victim but were arrested before finding him.
Issue: Whether searching for the victim constituted an attempt.
Holding: Court ruled no attempt because the defendants had not yet taken a step directly toward committing the robbery.
Significance: Reaffirmed that attempt requires a direct act toward commission, not just preparation or planning.
📌 Commonwealth v. Peaslee (1883)
Facts: Defendant set fire to a building but the fire was extinguished before causing harm.
Holding: The act of setting fire was held as an attempt to commit arson.
Significance: Demonstrated that taking a substantial step that would lead directly to the commission of a crime satisfies attempt.
📌 State v. Mitchell (1986)
Facts: Defendant fired a gun at a victim but missed.
Holding: Defendant was guilty of attempted murder.
Significance: Shows that failing to complete the crime (missing the shot) does not negate attempt if intent and overt act are present.
Tests to Determine Attempt
Courts use different tests to decide if an act constitutes attempt:
1. The Proximity Test
Focuses on how close the defendant was to completing the crime.
Acts must be immediately connected to the crime.
2. The Substantial Step Test
Requires an act strongly corroborative of the intent to commit the crime.
Less strict than proximity; emphasizes significant movement toward crime.
3. The Unequivocality Test
Whether the defendant’s conduct unequivocally indicates intent to commit the crime.
Summary Table: Elements of Attempt
Element | Description | Case Example |
---|---|---|
Intent | Specific intent to commit crime | State v. Mitchell |
Act | Substantial step toward crime | Commonwealth v. Peaslee |
Beyond Preparation | More than mere planning or prep | People v. Rizzo |
Important Notes
Abandonment or Renunciation: Some jurisdictions allow defense if the defendant voluntarily abandons the attempt before completion.
Impossible Attempt: If the crime is impossible to complete (e.g., trying to pick an empty pocket), some courts still hold attempt liability if intent and steps exist.
Conclusion
Attempt in criminal law punishes those who demonstrate a clear intent to commit a crime and take concrete steps toward it, even if the crime is never completed. It ensures early intervention against criminal harm and balances fairness by requiring more than mere preparation.
0 comments