State v. Guffey
262 S.W.2d 152, 1953 Mo. App. LEXIS 443 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person cannot be convicted of attempting to commit a crime when, because of a legal impossibility, the act, if successfully completed, would not have constituted the crime intended. Shooting a stuffed decoy does not constitute an attempt to illegally take a wild animal because the decoy is not a wild animal under the law.
Facts:
- Missouri Conservation agents created a decoy using the hide of a doe that had been killed by a car.
- The agents stuffed the hide with excelsior and boards, used rods to make it stand, and placed reflective tape over the eye sockets.
- On September 12, 1952, during the closed season for deer hunting, the eight agents placed the stationary decoy in a field about 50 yards from a road.
- Defendants Guffey and Hoss, along with their wives, were driving on the road at night using spotlights.
- Upon spotting the decoy, someone in the car exclaimed, "Wait, there stands one."
- The car stopped, and defendant Hoss fired a shotgun loaded with a slug at the decoy.
- The defendants contended they were looking for a wolf they had seen earlier and shot at the decoy believing it was the wolf.
Procedural Posture:
- The State filed an information against Guffey and Hoss in magistrate's court, charging them with attempting to take a deer during a closed season.
- At a trial in the lower court, Guffey and Hoss were convicted of the offense.
- Guffey and Hoss, as appellants, appealed their convictions to the Springfield Court of Appeals, Missouri.
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 shooting at a stuffed deer decoy, believing it to be a live deer, constitute the crime of unlawfully attempting to 'pursue' and 'take' a deer during a closed season under state wildlife regulations?
Opinions:
Majority - Vandeventer, J.
No. Shooting at a stuffed decoy is not a criminal attempt to illegally take a deer because the act, if completed, would not have been a crime. The court reasoned that the relevant statute prohibits the 'pursuit' and 'taking' of 'wild life'. The term 'pursue' implies chasing or following a live animal capable of fleeing, which a stationary stuffed decoy is not. Furthermore, the court applied the doctrine of legal impossibility. It is not illegal to 'take' a stuffed hide. Therefore, an attempt to do something that is not itself a crime cannot be a criminal offense. The court analogized this to attempting to murder a corpse, which is not a crime because the person is already dead and cannot be murdered. Since the object was not a 'deer' within the meaning of the wildlife code, there could be no illegal pursuit, taking, or attempt thereof.
Analysis:
This case is a classic example of the legal impossibility defense in the law of criminal attempts. The court's holding establishes that for an attempt conviction, the underlying act the defendant intended to complete must actually be a crime. This decision distinguishes between legal impossibility (what the defendant intended is not a crime), which is a valid defense here, and factual impossibility (where extraneous circumstances prevent the crime, like trying to pick an empty pocket), which is generally not a defense. The ruling limits the reach of state power in prosecuting attempts by focusing on the legal character of the completed act rather than solely on the defendant's guilty state of mind.
