Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks


No description

Thaddeus Hoffmeister

on 18 March 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Attempt

Class #27
Prof. Hoffmeister

Commonwealth v. Peaslee
FACTS:D arranged combustibles in a building in order to facilitate a fire. D paid another person to start the fire. D drove his accomplice to the building to set the fire but had a change of heart prior to arriving. D was charged with Attempted Arson.
ISSUE: Were the D's actions sufficient to constitute an attempt?
ROL: Preparation is not attempt
ANALYSIS: Court looks at whether this was the last act to commit the arson.

People v. Rizzo
FACTS: D convicted of Attempted Robbery. D with three other people planned to rob Charles Rao of a $1200 payroll. The 4 criminals rode around looking for Rao. They went to the bank where Rao was supposed to get the $. Police were watching the car and when Rizzo exited the car he was arrested.
ISSUE: Were the D's actions sufficient to constitute attempt?
ANALYSIS: The defendants have to at least see Rao or know where he is.
Substantial Step
(1) Shift from what remains to be done to what the criminal has already done.
(2) No need to determine whether the D would probably have desisted.
(3) Easier to prove than the res ipsa loquitor approach.
State v. Reeves
ROL: OLD (1) intent to commit a specific crime; (2) overt act towards the commission of the crime; and (3) failure to complete the crime
NEW (1) if the circumstances surrounding the conduct were as the person believes them to be; (2) specific intent to carry out the crime; and (3) takes a substantial step towards commission of the crime
ANALYSIS:State argues that the legislators wanted to follow the MPC which gives you examples of what constitutes attempt. Court says that the state did not explicitly adopt the MPC. Defendants had the necessary tools to commit the crime at the scene of the crime.

QUESTIONS: Why have element #3 under the old law?
Dupuy v. State is that a mistake of fact or a mistake of law?
People v. Miller
FACTS: D convicted of attempted murder. While inebriated, the D threatened to kill Albert Jeans. D saw Jeans in a field and approached him with a loaded 22. A police officer observed the D and took his weapon.
ISSUE: Does the D's actions constitute attempt?
ANALYSIS: It is not clear whether the D was calling for the arrest of Jeans or was attempting to kill him.
Question #3 Pg. 736
State v. Reeves
FACTS: Two middle school students (Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman) agree to kill their teacher with rat poison. On Jan 6th Coffman puts the poison in her purse. School officials learn of the plan. The teacher walks into her classroom and sees the two students leaning over her desk giggling. Poison never put in the teacher's coffee. Coffman is called to the principal's office and poison is discovered in her purse.
ISSUE: Did the Ds' actions constitute attempted murder?

#5 Pg. 743

One Final Problem Pg. 744

Class #29 will cover pages 745-763
Full transcript