People v. Rizzo
158 N.E. 888 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An act qualifies as a criminal attempt only when it is so near to the crime's accomplishment that in all reasonable probability the crime itself would have been committed but for timely interference; mere preparation or searching for an opportunity to commit the crime is not sufficient.
Facts:
- Charles Rizzo and three accomplices, Anthony Dorio, Thomas Milo, and John Thomasello, planned to rob Charles Rao of a company payroll valued at approximately $1,200.
- Two of the men were armed with firearms.
- Rizzo's role was to identify Rao, the payroll carrier, so the others could perform the robbery.
- On January 14th, the four men drove around in an automobile looking for Rao.
- They went to the bank where Rao was supposed to get the money and to various construction sites of the United Lathing Company.
- Police officers began watching and following the men's car.
- When the men arrived at One Hundred and Eightieth street and Morris Park avenue, Rizzo exited the car and ran into a building.
- At that moment, police arrested all four men; they had not found, seen, or come into the presence of Rao or anyone else with a payroll.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Rizzo and three co-defendants were jointly tried and convicted of attempt to commit robbery in the first degree in the County Court (trial court).
- Rizzo was the only defendant to appeal the conviction to the Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment of conviction, with two justices dissenting.
- Rizzo 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:
Do the actions of planning a robbery, arming oneself, and searching for the intended victim, without ever finding or getting near the victim, constitute an attempt to commit robbery?
Opinions:
Majority - Crane, J.
No. The defendants' actions did not constitute an attempt to commit robbery because their acts had not advanced beyond mere preparation and had not come dangerously close to the consummation of the crime. The law distinguishes between acts of preparation, which are remote from the crime, and acts that are proximate and near to its completion. An act constitutes an attempt only when it is so near to the result that the danger of success is very great. In this case, the defendants had not found or even seen the person they intended to rob. Since they never reached the presence of their victim, Rao, no attempt to rob him could be made. Just as a person would not be guilty of attempted murder if they armed themselves but could not find their intended victim, these defendants were not guilty of attempted robbery while they were still hunting for their target.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision in criminal law that clarifies the 'proximity test' for attempt crimes. It establishes a high bar for what constitutes an attempt, requiring that the defendant's acts move beyond the preparatory stage and come into 'dangerous proximity' of success. The ruling emphasizes that intent alone is insufficient; there must be an overt act that is immediately connected to the commission of the intended crime. This precedent forces courts to draw a fine line between non-criminal preparation and a punishable criminal attempt, impacting how similar cases involving unfulfilled criminal plans are prosecuted.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Rizzo