Commonwealth v. Peaslee
59 N.E. 55, 177 Mass. 267, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 627 (1901)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While mere preparation to commit a crime is generally not a punishable attempt, preparatory acts can constitute a criminal attempt if they come in very close proximity to the completion of the intended crime, making its consummation highly probable.
Facts:
- A defendant constructed and arranged combustible materials within a building with the intent to burn it to defraud an insurer.
- The defendant's plan required a candle, located six feet away from the combustibles, to be placed in a pan of turpentine and lit.
- The defendant offered to pay a young man in his employment to go to the building and execute the plan by lighting the candle.
- The young man refused the defendant's offer.
- Sometime later, the defendant and the young man drove together towards the building.
- When they were approximately a quarter of a mile away, the defendant announced he had changed his mind and drove away from the location.
- The defendant never got closer than a quarter of a mile to the building after making the final preparations and soliciting his employee.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged by indictment in a Massachusetts trial court for an attempt to commit arson with intent to defraud an insurer.
- At trial, the defendant's counsel moved to quash the indictment.
- The defendant's counsel also requested the judge to direct a verdict for the defendant.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motions, and the defendant was presumably convicted.
- The defendant appealed the adverse judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on a bill of exceptions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Must an indictment for criminal attempt specifically allege all overt acts, such as solicitation, that the prosecution will rely on to prove the attempt went beyond mere preparation?
Opinions:
Majority - Holmes, C. J.
Yes. For a defendant to be convicted of an attempt, the indictment must specifically allege the overt acts that demonstrate the defendant's actions progressed beyond mere preparation. If an essential overt act, such as soliciting another to commit the crime, is not alleged in the indictment, it cannot be used as a basis to prove the attempt itself, although it may be admissible as evidence of intent. The court reasoned that there is a critical distinction between preparation and attempt, which is a matter of degree and proximity. An act becomes an attempt when the preparation comes 'very near to the accomplishment of the act,' making the crime probable. Here, the indictment only alleged the preparation of the combustible materials. It failed to allege the defendant's solicitation of the employee. The court held that if the prosecution's theory was that the solicitation was the final act needed from the defendant, then that solicitation was a required overt act that must be pleaded in the indictment. Without this allegation, the indictment was defective, as the mere preparation of materials was too remote to constitute an attempt.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in criminal law for its articulation of the proximity test to distinguish non-criminal preparation from a criminal attempt. Justice Holmes's analysis, focusing on whether a defendant's acts come 'very near' to completion, has profoundly influenced how courts evaluate inchoate offenses. The ruling establishes that the analysis is a 'question of degree' dependent on the specific circumstances, rather than a rigid rule. While the case was ultimately decided on a procedural pleading issue, its substantive discussion of the actus reus for attempt created an enduring legal standard that requires a close temporal and causal connection between the defendant's act and the intended crime.
