United States v. Jackson
560 F.2d 112 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal attempt requires the defendant to have the specific intent to commit a crime and to have taken a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to result in the crime, where the step is strongly corroborative of the defendant's criminal purpose.
Facts:
- On June 11, 1976, Vanessa Hodges and Martin Allen agreed to rob a Manufacturers Hanover branch in Brooklyn, with Allen providing a car and weapons.
- On June 14, Allen, Robert Jackson, and Hodges drove to the bank with a suitcase containing a sawed-off shotgun, masks, and handcuffs.
- Arriving too late for their initial plan, they recruited William Scott as a fourth accomplice, obtained a second sawed-off shotgun, and returned to the bank.
- At the bank, Allen entered to scout for surveillance cameras while Jackson placed a fake license plate on their car.
- After Scott also entered the bank and reported it was too crowded, the group postponed the robbery to June 21 and purchased additional disguise materials.
- On June 21, Jackson, Allen, and Scott returned to the bank with loaded shotguns and a fake license plate on their car. Hodges was not with them, as she had been arrested and was cooperating with the FBI.
- The group circled the bank, parked nearby for surveillance, and had one member get out to observe the entrance area.
- Before they could proceed further, they detected FBI surveillance, attempted to flee, and were arrested by agents.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Jackson, William Scott, and Martin Allen were charged in a four-count indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- The charges included conspiracy to commit armed robbery, two counts of attempted armed robbery, and possession of unregistered firearms.
- The defendants' motion to suppress evidence was denied after a pre-trial hearing.
- Following a bench trial, the Chief Judge found each defendant guilty on all four counts.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the attempt convictions.
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 constitute an attempt to commit a crime when they have the requisite criminal intent and engage in acts, such as reconnoitering the target location and possessing materials specially designed for the crime, which are strongly corroborative of their criminal purpose, even if they do not perform the final act necessary to complete the crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Frederick van Pelt Bryan
Yes. The defendants' conduct constituted an attempt to commit bank robbery because their actions went beyond mere preparation and amounted to a substantial step that was strongly corroborative of their criminal intent. The court adopted the two-tiered test for attempt from the Model Penal Code, which requires: (1) the defendant must act with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the crime, and (2) the defendant must engage in conduct that constitutes a 'substantial step' toward the commission of the crime. This test shifts the focus from what remains to be done (the proximity tests) to what the actor has already done. Here, the appellants' criminal intent was undisputed. On two separate occasions, they took substantial steps by reconnoitering the bank and possessing paraphernalia—loaded sawed-off shotguns, masks, handcuffs, and a fake license plate—specifically designed for the crime and serving no lawful purpose. These acts, individually and collectively, were strongly corroborative of the firmness of their criminal purpose, thus crossing the line from preparation to attempt.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Second Circuit's adoption of the Model Penal Code's 'substantial step' test for criminal attempt, moving away from older, more restrictive proximity-based tests. By focusing on what the defendant has already done to corroborate their criminal intent, the ruling broadens the scope of attempt liability. This allows law enforcement to intervene earlier in the commission of a crime without jeopardizing the ability to secure a conviction, as prosecutors no longer need to prove the defendant was at the precipice of completing the offense. The case establishes a clear precedent that acts like reconnoitering and possessing specialized criminal tools are legally sufficient to constitute a substantial step.
