Commonwealth v. Gilliam

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
417 A. 2d 1203, 273 Pa. Super. 586 (1980)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A person commits a criminal attempt when, with intent to commit a specific crime, they perform any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime, focusing on the acts already completed rather than the acts remaining.

Facts:

Richard V. Gilliam was an inmate at Dallas State Correctional Institution.
A guard discovered that the window bars in Gilliam's cell had been completely cut and were being held in place by sticks and paper, allowing them to be manually removed at will.
An inspection of the cell just before it was assigned to Gilliam as its sole occupant had shown the bars to be intact.
A shelf hook was found to be missing from its place in the cell.
A subsequent search revealed visegrips concealed inside Gilliam’s mattress.
The search also uncovered two knotted extension cords attached to a hook, fashioned from the missing shelf hook, hidden in a box of clothing.
The visegrips were capable of cutting the type of barbed wire on the fence that was the sole barrier between Gilliam's cell window and the prison perimeter.

Procedural Posture:

Richard V. Gilliam was tried by a jury in a Pennsylvania trial court.
The jury convicted Gilliam of criminal attempt to escape and possession of implements for escape.
Gilliam filed post-trial motions, which were argued after a delay.
Gilliam appealed the judgment of sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
On appeal, Gilliam argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.

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 an inmate's act of cutting through their cell bars and possessing customized escape tools constitute a 'substantial step' toward the commission of escape, sufficient to sustain a conviction for criminal attempt under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code?

Opinions:

Majority - Wieand, J.

Yes. An inmate's act of cutting through their cell bars and possessing customized escape tools constitutes a 'substantial step' toward the commission of escape. The Pennsylvania Crimes Code adopts the 'substantial step' test for criminal attempt, which broadens liability from the prior legal standard. The court's analysis focuses on the acts the defendant has already done, not on the acts remaining to be completed. In this case, Gilliam not only manufactured and assembled the necessary paraphernalia for an escape but also sawed through the bars of his cell window. These actions, viewed together, are a substantial and necessary step toward escape, making it irrelevant that he was apprehended before he was in the physical process of leaving the prison.

Analysis:

This case is significant for its interpretation of Pennsylvania's statutory definition of criminal attempt. By explicitly adopting and applying the 'substantial step' test from the Crimes Code, the court broadened the scope of attempt liability. The decision shifts the legal focus from the defendant's proximity to completing the crime to the significance of the preparatory actions already taken. This lowers the threshold for prosecutors to secure an attempt conviction, as they no longer need to prove the defendant was at the cusp of succeeding in the target offense.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Commonwealth v. Gilliam (1980)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"