State v. Damms
100 N.W.2d 592, 9 Wis. 2d 183, 79 A.L.R. 2d 1402 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Factual impossibility is not a defense to the crime of attempt. An individual can be convicted of an attempt crime if they possess the requisite criminal intent and perform unequivocal acts toward the commission of the crime, even if an unknown, extraneous factor makes the crime's completion impossible.
Facts:
- Ralph Damms and his wife were experiencing marital difficulties.
- Damms acquired a .32 caliber semiautomatic pistol.
- During an altercation, Damms pursued his wife and pointed the pistol at her head.
- Damms pulled the trigger.
- The pistol was unloaded because its ammunition clip was missing, leaving a large, visible opening in the butt of the gun.
- After being apprehended, Damms told police officers that he thought the gun was loaded at the time he pulled the trigger.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Wisconsin prosecuted Ralph Damms in a state trial court for the crime of attempt to commit murder.
- A jury found Damms guilty as charged.
- Damms appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
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 factual impossibility of committing murder because the gun was unloaded preclude a conviction for attempt to commit murder under a statute that defines attempt as being thwarted by an 'extraneous factor'?
Opinions:
Majority - Currie, J.
No. The factual impossibility of committing murder because the gun was unloaded does not preclude a conviction for attempt. The unloaded state of the gun, unknown to the defendant, constitutes an 'extraneous factor' under the attempt statute. The law's focus is on the dangerous propensities of the actor as demonstrated by his unequivocal acts and criminal intent, not on how close he came to succeeding. Public policy supports punishing an actor who, as far as he knows, has done everything necessary to commit the intended crime and should not escape liability due to a fortuitous circumstance unknown to him. The jury was entitled to believe Damms' statement that he thought the gun was loaded and to conclude that in his state of excitement, he failed to notice the obvious signs it was empty.
Dissenting - Dieterich, J.
Yes. The impossibility of committing the murder precludes a conviction for attempt in this case. An 'extraneous factor' must originate from an outside source beyond the actor's control. The defendant's own failure to load the pistol is not an extraneous factor but rather an omission of a necessary part of the criminal act itself. The statute requires acts that 'demonstrate unequivocally' the intent to commit the crime, and failing to perform the essential act of loading the gun negates that unequivocal demonstration. Furthermore, the objective evidence—the large, obvious opening in the pistol's butt—raises a reasonable doubt that Damms could have believed it was loaded. The legislative history, specifically the removal of a clause stating impossibility is not a defense, further suggests the legislature intended for this type of impossibility to be a valid defense.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the modern, subjectivist view of criminal attempts, shifting the legal focus from the 'dangerous proximity' to the completed crime to the actor's 'dangerous propensities' as evidenced by their intent and actions. By classifying an unknown factual impossibility as an 'extraneous factor,' the court established that a defendant's culpability hinges on their state of mind, not on the actual potential for harm. This decision makes it easier to prosecute attempt crimes where the defendant is thwarted by a lucky accident or their own mistake, reinforcing the principle that the law punishes criminal intent when coupled with a substantial step toward completion.
