People v. Miller
2 Cal. 2d 527 (1935)
Rule of Law:
A criminal attempt requires both the specific intent to commit a crime and a direct, unequivocal, ineffectual act toward its commission that goes beyond mere preparation.
Facts:
- The defendant, Miller, who was somewhat under the influence of liquor, publicly threatened to kill Albert Jeans.
- Miller stated he was angry because Jeans, a Black man, had been annoying his wife and the authorities had not intervened.
- Later that day, Miller took a .22 caliber rifle and entered a hop field where Jeans was working.
- A constable, Ginochio, was in the field between Miller and Jeans; Miller was about 330 yards from Jeans.
- Miller walked in the direction of Ginochio and stopped about 100 yards into the field, appearing to load the rifle.
- Upon seeing Miller, Jeans fled the scene.
- Miller never lifted the rifle as if to take aim at Jeans.
- Constable Ginochio approached Miller and took the rifle without any resistance; it was found to be loaded with a cartridge.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Miller, was charged by amended information in the Superior Court of Mendocino County (a trial court) with attempt to commit murder against Albert Jeans.
- A jury convicted the defendant of the charge.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial.
- The defendant appealed the judgment of conviction and the order denying a new trial to the Supreme Court of California.
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 a defendant's acts of obtaining a loaded rifle, walking toward his intended victim, and stopping to load the weapon constitute an attempt to commit murder if he does not aim the weapon or otherwise commit an unambiguous hostile act?
Opinions:
Majority - Shenk, J.
No. The defendant's acts did not legally constitute an attempt to commit murder because they did not cross the line from mere preparation into a direct, unequivocal act toward the commission of the crime. To constitute an attempt, there must be two elements: 1) a specific intent to commit the crime, and 2) a direct ineffectual act done toward its commission. The court reasoned that preparation consists of devising or arranging the means, while the attempt is the direct movement towards commission after preparations are made. Miller's actions remained equivocal; up until the moment the gun was taken, it was impossible to say with certainty whether he intended to kill Jeans or merely to confront Constable Ginochio and demand Jeans' arrest. Because his conduct never ceased to be equivocal and did not amount to a 'commencement of the consummation' of the crime, it constituted only preparation, which is not sufficient for a conviction of attempt.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the crucial legal distinction between preparation and attempt, setting a high bar for what constitutes a 'direct act' toward the commission of a crime in California. The court's focus on the 'equivocal' nature of the defendant's conduct establishes that an act is not an attempt if it could still be interpreted as having a lawful purpose. This 'equivocality' standard requires prosecutors to present evidence of an unambiguous step toward the crime's consummation, making it more difficult to secure convictions in cases where a defendant is apprehended before the final, irrevocable act. The decision emphasizes that even with clear evidence of intent (such as threats), the act itself must be a clear fragment of the crime's execution.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: People v. Miller (1935)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"