State v. Curtis
1991 Vt. LEXIS 226, 157 Vt. 629, 603 A.2d 356 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The defense of legal impossibility does not preclude a conviction for criminal attempt when a defendant intends to commit a crime and performs overt acts toward its commission, even if, due to circumstances unknown to the defendant, the completion of the crime was actually impossible.
Facts:
- On November 18, 1988, two state game wardens placed a deer decoy in a field adjacent to a town road in Greensboro, Vermont, as a measure to detect illegal taking of deer.
- The decoy was constructed using styrofoam and wood, covered with a deer hide, and featured a mounted deer head with reflective tape over its glass eyes, designed to resemble a live deer.
- The wardens observed defendant’s pickup truck proceeding slowly, stopping, and shining a 'very bright' light from the passenger window directly at the decoy.
- The truck stopped again, and the light reappeared, aimed at the decoy, followed by the silhouette of a rifle emerging from the driver’s window.
- A gunshot was heard, and upon examination, wardens found that one eye of the deer decoy had been shattered by a gunshot.
- The wardens converged on the truck, identifying the defendant as the operator, and seized a .22 caliber rifle, ammunition, and lighting devices.
- An expended .22 caliber casing was found on the ground nearby the decoy.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was convicted by a trial court of attempting to take a wild deer out of season under 10 V.S.A. § 4745.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed this conviction to the Vermont Supreme 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 the defense of legal impossibility preclude a conviction for criminal attempt when a defendant shoots a deer decoy, believing it to be a live deer, intending to take a wild deer out of season?
Opinions:
Majority - Morse, J.
No, the defense of legal impossibility does not preclude a conviction for criminal attempt because the defendant's actions demonstrated a clear intent to commit the crime of taking a wild deer out of season, and he performed an overt act toward its commission. The court held that Vermont’s attempt statute, which includes failure in execution 'by reason of being interrupted or prevented,' encompasses situations where a defendant is prevented from completing the intended crime because they were tricked, such as shooting a decoy instead of a live deer. The court rejected the 'semantic defense' of legal impossibility, aligning with the modern trend among jurisdictions and the Model Penal Code, which emphasize the actor's criminal purpose and dangerousness rather than the objective impossibility of completing the crime due to unknown circumstances. The court found that the defendant possessed the specific intent to take a wild deer out of season, and his failure to actually take a live deer was of no consequence. Upholding the conviction supports the policy goals of wildlife protection legislation and enables safer detection of poachers. The court also dismissed the defendant’s other arguments regarding entrapment and Fish and Wildlife Department guidelines due to waiver or lack of constitutional implications.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the attempt statute in Vermont by explicitly rejecting the defense of legal impossibility. By focusing on the defendant's criminal intent and overt acts rather than the actual possibility of completing the crime, the court aligns Vermont law with modern criminal jurisprudence, as exemplified by the Model Penal Code and a majority of other jurisdictions. This decision enhances the effectiveness of law enforcement's use of tools like decoys in detecting and deterring illegal activities, particularly in wildlife protection, by ensuring that individuals who clearly intend and attempt to commit a crime are held accountable, regardless of unforeseen circumstances that prevent completion.
