State v. Reeves
1996 Tenn. LEXIS 119, 916 S.W.2d 909 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An actor takes a substantial step toward the commission of a crime, satisfying the requirement for criminal attempt, when they possess materials to be used in the crime at or near the crime scene, and such possession serves no lawful purpose and is strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal intent.
Facts:
- Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman, both twelve years old, spoke on the phone and agreed to kill their teacher, Janice Geiger, by putting rat poison in her drink.
- The girls also planned to steal Geiger's car and drive to the Smoky Mountains.
- Reeves contacted a high school student, Dean Foutch, and asked him to drive the stolen car, but he refused.
- The next morning, Coffman brought a packet of rat poison to school in her purse.
- On the school bus, Coffman told another student, Christy Hernandez, about the plan and showed her the poison.
- Hernandez reported the plan to a teacher, who then informed the principal.
- Geiger entered her classroom and saw Reeves and Coffman leaning over her desk, near her coffee cup.
- When the girls noticed Geiger, they giggled and ran to their seats, leaving a purse on the desk next to the coffee cup.
Procedural Posture:
- Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman were found to be delinquent by the Carroll County Juvenile Court (court of first instance).
- Reeves and Coffman appealed the ruling to the Carroll County Circuit Court for a new trial.
- A jury in the Circuit Court found the girls guilty of attempted second-degree murder, and the court affirmed the delinquency order.
- Reeves, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Tennessee Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
- Reeves, as appellant, sought and was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee (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:
Does a defendant's conduct of possessing poison at the intended crime scene, pursuant to a plan to kill a teacher, constitute a 'substantial step' toward the commission of second-degree murder under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-12-101(a)(3)?
Opinions:
Majority - Drowota, Judge.
Yes. The defendant's conduct constitutes a 'substantial step' toward the commission of second-degree murder. The court explicitly abandons its prior, stricter standard for criminal attempt which required a direct 'overt act' and distinguished it from 'mere preparation.' That old rule, articulated in Dupuy v. State, endangered the public by preventing law enforcement intervention until a crime was on the brink of consummation. The new standard, guided by the Model Penal Code and the legislature's 1989 adoption of the 'substantial step' language, allows a jury to find a substantial step has been taken when an actor possesses materials to be used in a crime, at or near the scene, where such possession serves no lawful purpose and is strongly corroborative of the criminal intent. Here, possessing rat poison in the classroom near the teacher's desk and coffee cup had no lawful purpose and strongly corroborated the admitted plan to kill, thus constituting a substantial step.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Birch, Justice
No. While the new rule for determining a 'substantial step' is correct, the evidence in this case is insufficient as a matter of law to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The criminal attempt statute requires the defendant's 'entire course of action' to be corroborative of the criminal intent. When considering the 'entire course of action,' the fact that the defendants were two twelve-year-old girls, not sophisticated criminals, should be taken into account. Their actions were not sufficiently corroborative of an intent to commit second-degree murder to meet the legal standard.
Analysis:
This case marks a significant shift in Tennessee's criminal attempt jurisprudence, moving away from the traditional, narrow 'mere preparation' versus 'overt act' distinction. By adopting a 'substantial step' test modeled after the Model Penal Code, the court moves the point of criminal liability earlier in the timeline of a planned offense. This change makes it easier for the state to prosecute attempt crimes and allows law enforcement to intervene before the final, irrevocable act is taken, thereby prioritizing the goal of crime prevention. The decision broadens the scope of what actions can be considered an attempt, giving juries more latitude to convict based on preparatory acts that strongly indicate criminal purpose.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Reeves