Evans v. State
453 S.E.2d 100, 216 Ga. App. 21 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An act constitutes a "substantial step" toward the commission of a crime for the purposes of a criminal attempt conviction when it moves beyond mere preparation and, viewed with other actions, directly tends toward the commission of the intended crime. The analysis focuses on what the actor has already done to show a firm criminal purpose, rather than on what remains to be completed.
Facts:
- Derek Evans, Christopher Tinch, and Jermaine Corbitt discussed a plan to steal stereo equipment from automobiles.
- The group possessed tools for the crime, including screwdrivers, pliers, and various car keys.
- Tinch drove the group in his car to a mall parking lot with the intention of finding a car to break into.
- For approximately 45 minutes, they drove slowly through the parking lots of the mall and two other nearby shopping centers.
- During this time, they closely observed vehicles, particularly a Volkswagen Cabriolet, a type of car often stolen.
- The group left the parking lots without entering any automobile because they realized a pickup truck, occupied by undercover police officers, was following them.
Procedural Posture:
- Derek Evans and Christopher Tinch were charged with criminal attempt to enter an automobile.
- The defendants waived their right to a jury trial and were tried by a judge in a Georgia trial court.
- The trial court judge found Evans and Tinch guilty of the offense.
- Evans and Tinch appealed their convictions to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove they took a 'substantial step'.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the acts of planning a theft, possessing burglary tools, and driving slowly through multiple parking lots for 45 minutes while searching for a specific vehicle to break into constitute a "substantial step" toward entering an automobile, as required for a conviction of criminal attempt?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
Yes. These actions, taken as a whole, constitute a substantial step toward entering an automobile with the intent to commit a theft. The court distinguishes between 'mere acts of preparation,' which are insufficient for an attempt conviction, and acts that directly tend toward the commission of the crime. While discussing the plan and possessing tools were preparatory, the defendants' conduct went beyond these remote acts when they drove to the shopping centers and actively searched for a specific vehicle to victimize. Citing Smith v. State, the court emphasized that the 'substantial step' standard shifts the focus from what remains to be done to what the actor has already done, demonstrating a firm criminal purpose. The defendants' actions were more than preparation and were inexplicable as lawful conduct, thus supporting the conviction for criminal attempt.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the legal boundary between mere preparation and a criminal attempt under the 'substantial step' test. The decision establishes that a series of acts, none of which may be individually sufficient, can collectively constitute a substantial step when they demonstrate a clear progression from planning to execution. This precedent provides lower courts with guidance on how to evaluate a defendant's conduct as a whole to determine if it is 'inexplicable as a lawful act.' It solidifies the principle that the focus of an attempt analysis is on the defendant's completed actions that corroborate their criminal intent, not on how close they came to completing the ultimate crime.
Unlock the full brief for Evans v. State