People v. Brown
75 Ill. App. 3d 503, 31 Ill. Dec. 147, 394 N.E.2d 63 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To constitute a 'substantial step' for the crime of attempt, a defendant's actions must go beyond mere preparation and place them in 'dangerous proximity to success,' which requires having the necessary tools or assistance to complete the intended crime.
Facts:
- On the evening of July 7, 1977, the defendant, along with Leland Williamson and Randy Gossage, drove to Carthage after the defendant mentioned 'finding some pop bottles.'
- They went to an alley behind a supermarket where a ten-foot-tall, topless fiberglass enclosure contained pop bottles.
- The defendant jumped onto the enclosure, observed the bottles, and told his companions about them.
- At the defendant's suggestion, Gossage also climbed the enclosure to see its contents.
- The defendant later asked Gossage, another acquaintance named Brad Boyer, and Williamson to help him remove cases of bottles from the enclosure.
- All of his companions refused to help.
- The men were walking away from the enclosure, about 27 feet away, when they were spotted by a city marshal.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was prosecuted by the State in the Circuit Court of Hancock County.
- Following a trial, a jury found the defendant guilty of attempt theft under $150.
- The trial court sentenced the defendant to two years of probation, including 30 days in jail, and a $1,000 fine.
- The defendant appealed his conviction to the appellate court.
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 take a 'substantial step' toward the commission of a theft, as required for an attempt conviction, by observing the target property and unsuccessfully soliciting others for help, when they lack the necessary tools or assistance to complete the crime themselves?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stengel
No. A defendant's actions do not constitute a 'substantial step' toward the commission of a theft if they amount only to mere preparation and do not place the defendant in 'dangerous proximity to success.' The essential question is whether the defendant performed acts bringing him dangerously close to carrying out the intended crime. In this case, the defendant's acts of observing the bottles and unsuccessfully soliciting aid from his friends were mere preparation. He was not in dangerous proximity to success because the enclosure was ten feet tall and he had neither the assistance of his companions, which they refused, nor the tools, such as a ladder, necessary to remove the bottles himself. Unlike cases where defendants possessed the tools to complete the crime, this defendant lacked the present ability to carry out the theft, making his actions insufficient to sustain a conviction for attempt.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the boundary between 'mere preparation' and a 'substantial step' in the law of attempt. It refines the 'dangerous proximity' test by establishing that a defendant's present ability to complete the crime is a critical factor. The decision signifies that intent coupled with presence at a scene is not enough; the prosecution must also prove the defendant had the means, such as necessary tools or assistance, to be considered dangerously close to completing the offense. This precedent makes it more difficult to secure attempt convictions in cases where the defendant's plan is thwarted by a lack of necessary resources or cooperation from others.
