Collier v. State
2006 WL 1098655, 846 N.E.2d 340 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a defendant's conduct to constitute a substantial step toward the commission of a crime, the overt act must be strongly corroborative of a firm criminal purpose and go beyond mere preparation. Acts that are equivocal, such as arriving at a location and then becoming incapacitated before approaching the victim, may not be sufficient to satisfy this requirement.
Facts:
- Mark Collier and his wife, Naney, separated, and Naney obtained a protective order against him, ordering him to stay away from her workplace, Cameron Hospital.
- On April 24, 2003, Collier told his neighbor, Charles Cameron, that he was going to kill his wife and himself.
- Later that evening, Collier told Cameron, "Tonight's the night," made arrangements for his pets, and collected an ice pick, a box cutter, and a pair of binoculars.
- Collier stated, "I'm gonna stab her in the effin' heart twice. I'm gonna cut her effin' throat," and left in his pickup truck around 9:00 p.m., heading towards the hospital.
- Around 10:40 p.m., police found Collier's pickup truck backed into a parking space across the street from the hospital's only late-night exit, providing a view of the entrance.
- Police discovered Collier inside the vehicle, which was turned off, with Collier either asleep or passed out.
- A search of the truck revealed the ice pick, box cutter, and binoculars.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Indiana charged Mark Collier with Attempted Murder, a Class A felony, in a state trial court.
- Following a jury trial, the jury found Collier guilty as charged.
- The trial court sentenced Collier to a thirty-year prison term, with five years suspended to probation.
- Collier, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, arguing the evidence was insufficient.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's conduct of driving to his estranged wife's workplace with potential weapons, parking with a view of the exit, and then falling asleep in his vehicle constitute a substantial step toward the commission of murder as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Vaidik, J.
No. The defendant's conduct did not constitute a substantial step toward the commission of murder. To be a substantial step, the completed acts must be strongly corroborative of the firmness of the defendant's criminal intent. Here, Collier's conduct remained equivocal because he was found asleep or passed out, rendering his possession of close-contact weapons like an ice pick and box cutter virtually useless from his position in the parking lot. Unlike a case involving a bomb or a long-range weapon, Collier never closed the distance necessary to make his chosen weapons dangerous, nor did he demonstrate a present ability or intent to use them. This equivocal behavior supports the claim that he never moved beyond mere preparation.
Dissenting - Barnes, J.
Yes. The defendant's conduct was sufficient for a jury to find he took a substantial step toward the commission of murder. The determination of what constitutes a substantial step is a question for the jury, and its verdict should be respected. Collier's actions—lying in wait, reconnoitering the location, and possessing materials for the crime—fall squarely within the Model Penal Code's examples of a substantial step. When his explicit and detailed threats to kill Naney are combined with his actions of gathering weapons and positioning himself at her workplace, the conduct is strongly corroborative of his criminal purpose. The fact that he was found asleep is legally irrelevant, as the law focuses on the substantial step that has been completed, not on what remains to be done or on the defendant's present ability to complete the crime.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'substantial step' requirement in Indiana's attempt law, creating a high bar for what constitutes conduct that is 'strongly corroborative' of criminal intent. The decision emphasizes that even with direct statements of intent and preparatory actions, conduct that is ultimately equivocal—like falling asleep before any direct approach—may be insufficient as a matter of law. This ruling provides a significant defense for individuals apprehended early in the preparatory stages of a crime, suggesting that courts will look for an overt act that demonstrates a more immediate and unequivocal threat to the victim before sustaining an attempted murder conviction.
