Moffett v. State
618 P.2d 1223 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An act constitutes an attempt to commit a crime, rather than mere preparation, when it is a direct movement toward the commission of the offense after preparations are made, even if it is not the final act required to complete the crime.
Facts:
- Deanna Moffett planned an incident involving her ex-boyfriend's new partner, Linda Exner, for approximately two days.
- Moffett obtained the keys to Exner's apartment without permission.
- She wrote a suicide note that she intended to force Exner to copy.
- In the early morning of August 29, 1978, Moffett and a 14-year-old accomplice, Bobby McPherson, entered Exner's apartment while Exner was asleep.
- Moffett began to tie Exner up while McPherson held a knife to Exner's throat.
- Moffett untied Exner's hands and dictated the pre-written suicide note, telling Exner that afterward she would be given pills to make her sleep for 48 hours.
- Exner wrote approximately one line of the note before she managed to struggle free and escape.
- Moffett and McPherson fled the scene.
Procedural Posture:
- Deanna Moffett was tried in a state trial court.
- A jury convicted Moffett of attempted murder and burglary.
- Moffett, as the appellant, appealed her convictions to the Supreme Court of Nevada, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support the attempted murder conviction.
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 act of entering a victim's home, tying them up, and forcing them to write a suicide note, while in possession of sleeping pills and a knife, constitute a direct act beyond mere preparation sufficient to sustain a conviction for attempted murder?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the defendant's acts were sufficient to sustain a conviction for attempted murder. The court distinguishes between 'preparation,' which involves devising the means for the offense, and an 'attempt,' which is a direct movement towards the commission after preparations are complete. Citing precedent, the court affirmed that the required actus reus for an attempt is a 'direct but ineffectual act toward the commission of the crime,' which does not need to be the actual commencement of the final, potentially death-producing action. Moffett's actions—acquiring the keys and necessary materials, entering the apartment, restraining the victim, and compelling her to write the note—went far beyond mere preparation. These acts constituted a direct movement to effectuate her plan, which was only thwarted by the victim's fortuitous escape.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the actus reus for attempt crimes in Nevada, reinforcing that the defendant does not need to perform the last proximate act to be found guilty. By holding that a series of acts that exert control over a victim and begin to effectuate a criminal plan are sufficient, the court adopts a standard closer to the 'substantial step' test. This decision gives prosecutors more latitude in charging attempt, as it allows for a conviction even when the defendant is stopped well before completing the final, harmful act. It signals a practical, common-sense approach to distinguishing preparation from attempt, focusing on the defendant's clear movement towards completing the crime.
Unlock the full brief for Moffett v. State