Commonwealth v. Henley
41 A.L.R. 4th 579, 504 Pa. 408, 474 A.2d 1115 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The defense of legal impossibility has been abrogated in Pennsylvania by statute; a defendant can be convicted of a criminal attempt if they intended to commit a crime and took a substantial step, even if the crime was impossible to complete due to circumstances they misapprehended.
Facts:
- Samuel Henley was the owner of Henley Brothers Jewelry Store in Philadelphia.
- On December 22, 1980, police gave an informant five specially coated chains to use in a sting operation.
- The informant entered Henley's store and offered to sell the five gold chains, representing them as stolen.
- Henley, believing the chains were stolen property, purchased them from the informant for $30.
- Henley took possession of the chains and told the informant he would be willing to buy more stolen goods in the future.
Procedural Posture:
- Samuel Henley was charged with attempted theft by receiving stolen property in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, a court of first instance.
- At his non-jury trial, after the Commonwealth presented its case, Henley demurred to the evidence.
- The trial court granted the demurrer, dismissing the charge based on the defense of legal impossibility.
- The Commonwealth, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for trial, with Henley as the appellee.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted allocatur to review the Superior Court's decision, with Henley as the Appellant.
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 the defense of legal impossibility prevent a conviction for attempted receipt of stolen property where the defendant believed the property was stolen, but it was not, because it was in police custody?
Opinions:
Majority - Papadakos, J.
No. The defense of legal impossibility does not prevent a conviction for attempt because it has been legislatively abrogated in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Crimes Code, specifically 18 Pa.C.S. Section 901(b), eliminates both legal and factual impossibility as defenses to a charge of criminal attempt. The court reasoned that the legislature, influenced by the Model Penal Code, intended to shift the focus of the law of attempt from the external circumstances to the actor's criminal intent. The statute requires only that the actor intend to commit a crime and take a substantial step toward its commission. Because Henley believed the chains were stolen and acted on that belief by purchasing them, his conduct satisfies the elements of attempt, regardless of the fact that the chains were not actually stolen.
Concurring - Nix, C.J.
No. I agree with the majority's conclusion and write to clarify that the focus in attempt cases should be on the substantive danger the defendant’s actions pose to society, which is reflected in their criminal intent. The abrogation of the impossibility defense is proper because the actor's mental frame of reference demonstrates a dangerousness that justifies criminal liability. However, it is crucial to distinguish this from situations where the intended conduct is not a crime at all. A person cannot be guilty of an attempt if their intended act is perfectly legal, even if they mistakenly believe it to be criminal. The law punishes the intent to engage in specific criminal conduct, not a general willingness to break the law.
Analysis:
This decision officially abolishes the common law defense of legal impossibility for attempt crimes in Pennsylvania, aligning the state with the Model Penal Code and the modern trend in American jurisprudence. The ruling simplifies the law of attempt by eliminating the often confusing and artificial distinction between legal and factual impossibility. By focusing solely on the defendant's mens rea (criminal intent) and the substantial step taken, the court makes it clear that criminal culpability attaches to the demonstrated willingness to commit a crime, irrespective of external factors that might prevent its completion. This precedent strengthens the ability of prosecutors to charge defendants in sting operations where the criminal object (e.g., stolen goods, controlled substances) is supplied by law enforcement.
