United States v. Joyce
693 F.2d 838 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To be guilty of a criminal attempt, a defendant must take a "substantial step" toward the commission of the crime that strongly corroborates their criminal intent; merely preparatory actions, followed by an unambiguous refusal to complete the final necessary acts, do not cross the threshold from preparation to attempt.
Facts:
- Government informant James Gebbie contacted Michael Dennis Joyce multiple times to arrange a cocaine purchase in St. Louis as part of a police 'reverse sting operation'.
- On October 20, 1980, Joyce confirmed to Gebbie that he had $22,000 and would fly from Oklahoma City to St. Louis the next day to buy cocaine.
- On October 21, 1980, Joyce met Gebbie and undercover officer Robert Jones in a St. Louis hotel room and stated he could 'handle' a pound of cocaine for $20,000.
- Jones presented Joyce with a duct-taped package purported to contain cocaine.
- An impasse occurred when Jones refused to unwrap the package until Joyce showed the purchase money, and Joyce refused to produce the money until Jones unwrapped the package.
- Joyce then stated that he would not deal with Jones at all, regardless of the cocaine's quality, and left the hotel room.
- Joyce made no attempt to produce his money or take possession of the drugs.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Dennis Joyce was charged in federal trial court (U.S. District Court).
- A jury found Joyce guilty on one count of attempting to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and one count of traveling in interstate commerce to facilitate an unlawful activity.
- The trial court sentenced Joyce to a term of ten years imprisonment on the first count and five years of probation on the second.
- Joyce (as appellant) appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, arguing the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
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 a substantial step toward the crime of attempting to possess a controlled substance when he travels to meet a seller, agrees on a price, but then unequivocally refuses to produce the money and complete the transaction?
Opinions:
Majority - Floyd R. Gibson
No. A defendant's conduct does not rise to the level of a criminal attempt if he abandons his criminal design prior to committing a necessary and substantial step to effectuate the crime. The court adopted the Model Penal Code's standard for attempt, which requires both criminal intent and a 'substantial step' toward the commission of the offense. Here, Joyce's actions of traveling to St. Louis and negotiating a price were 'mere preparation.' The crucial acts of producing the money and taking possession of the drugs never occurred. Instead, Joyce unambiguously refused to proceed with the transaction, effectively negating any prior steps. Because his actions were not interrupted by an outside force but were halted by his own refusal to proceed, he did not cross the line from preparation into a criminal attempt.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear judicial demarcation between 'mere preparation' and a 'substantial step' in the law of attempt. By reversing Joyce's conviction, the court affirmed that a defendant can engage in significant preparatory activities but still avoid liability for attempt if they voluntarily and unequivocally abandon the criminal enterprise before committing a final, essential act. This decision is significant because it highlights that the 'substantial step' must be an act that is strongly corroborative of the defendant's firm criminal purpose, not just preliminary arrangements. It provides a defense for individuals who may have had a criminal intent but ultimately 'get cold feet' before the point of no return.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Joyce