People v. Murray
14 Cal. 159 (1859) (1859)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal attempt requires more than mere preparation; it consists of a direct movement towards the commission of the crime after preparations are complete, which would result in the crime's consummation but for the intervention of an external circumstance.
Facts:
- The defendant declared his determination to contract a marriage with his niece.
- The defendant and his niece eloped for the avowed purpose of getting married.
- The defendant asked a witness to go find a magistrate to perform the marriage ceremony.
- The defendant never engaged a magistrate nor stood before one with his niece to exchange marriage vows.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in a trial court with an attempt to contract an incestuous marriage.
- After a trial, the defendant was convicted of the charge.
- The defendant appealed the conviction to this Court, which is the highest court of appeal.
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 declarations of intent to marry his niece, eloping with her for that purpose, and requesting a third party to find a magistrate constitute an 'attempt' to contract an incestuous marriage under the law?
Opinions:
Majority - Field, C. J.
No. A defendant's actions do not constitute a criminal attempt if they are merely preparatory. The law distinguishes between preparation, which involves devising or arranging the means for the commission of the offense, and the attempt itself, which is the direct movement toward commission after preparations are made. The defendant's declarations, elopement, and request for a magistrate were all preparatory acts. The attempt would not have begun until the parties stood before an engaged magistrate, ready to take the vows. An attempt must be manifested by acts that would end in the consummation of the offense but for the intervention of circumstances independent of the party's will.
Analysis:
This case establishes a foundational distinction in criminal law between mere preparation and a punishable criminal attempt. It adopts a version of the 'proximity test,' requiring the defendant's acts to be very close to the consummation of the target offense. By defining an attempt as a direct movement that would complete the crime but for external intervention, the court sets a high bar for proving an attempt, thereby protecting individuals from criminal liability for actions that are remote from the actual harm. This principle forces courts to carefully analyze the actus reus of an attempt, ensuring that intent alone, even when coupled with preliminary steps, is insufficient for a conviction.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: People v. Murray (1859)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"