People v. Jaffe
78 N.E. 169 (1906)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual cannot be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime if the consummated act would not have been a crime, regardless of the individual's belief or criminal intent. This principle is known as the defense of legal impossibility.
Facts:
- An employee of the copartnership J. W. Goddard & Son stole a quantity of cloth.
- Subsequently, the owners, J. W. Goddard & Son, recovered the stolen cloth.
- After the property was recovered, the owners, acting through an agent, offered the cloth for sale to the defendant.
- The defendant attempted to purchase the cloth under the belief that it was still stolen property.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged by indictment in the Court of General Sessions, New York County, with feloniously receiving stolen property.
- At trial, the defendant was convicted of an attempt to commit the crime charged.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction of the trial court.
- The defendant, as appellant, then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest 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 person commit the crime of attempting to receive stolen property if the property they try to receive has been recovered by its owners and is therefore no longer actually stolen at the time of the attempted receipt?
Opinions:
Majority - Willard Bartlett, J.
No. A person cannot be convicted of an attempt to receive stolen goods when the goods are not, in fact, stolen at the time of the attempted transaction. The crime of receiving stolen property requires the essential element of knowledge that the property was stolen. One cannot 'know' a fact that is not true. Since the property had been restored to its owners, it lost its character as 'stolen,' making it legally impossible for the defendant to have the requisite knowledge. Even if the defendant had completed the purchase, he would not have committed the underlying crime. Therefore, he cannot be guilty of an attempt to commit it, as an attempt cannot be a crime if the completed act would be legally innocent. This differs from 'pickpocket' cases where the act intended is criminal, but completion is prevented by an extraneous fact (factual impossibility).
Dissenting - Chase, J.
Yes. The defendant should be convicted of an attempt because his criminal intent is undisputed. The defendant did everything in his power to commit the crime of receiving stolen property, motivated by a guilty mind. The focus should be on the defendant's intent and conduct in furtherance of his criminal design, consistent with precedents like People v. Moran and People v. Gardner. The fact that the property was no longer stolen was an external circumstance unknown to him and should not absolve him of liability for the attempt.
Analysis:
This case establishes the defense of 'legal impossibility' for attempt crimes in New York, distinguishing it from 'factual impossibility.' The court reasons that if the intended act, even if fully completed, does not constitute a crime, then an attempt to do that act cannot be criminal. This ruling creates a significant loophole, allowing defendants with clear criminal intent to escape liability based on a mistake of fact about the legal status of their actions. The distinction between legal and factual impossibility has been heavily criticized and subsequently abolished or limited in many jurisdictions, including later in New York via statutory revision, which adopted the Model Penal Code's approach focusing more on the actor's intent.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Jaffe