United States v. Leroy J. Bussey
1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5897, 507 F.2d 1096 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's abandonment of a criminal enterprise is not a valid defense to a charge of attempt when the attempt has proceeded well beyond mere preparation and the abandonment is the result of the plan being frustrated, rather than a voluntary and complete renunciation of criminal purpose.
Facts:
- Leroy Bussey and his confederates formulated an elaborate plan to rob a bank.
- The plan involved forcing the bank manager to accompany them from his home to the bank to open the vault.
- Armed with pistols and a shotgun, Bussey and his group went to the bank manager's home.
- While at the manager's home, the manager informed them that the bank vault was equipped with a time lock and could not be opened until a much later, designated time.
- Convinced that their plan was foiled by the time lock, Bussey and his group abandoned the plan and left the manager's house.
- A female participant later confessed the entire plot to the FBI and gave them permission to search the motel room where the group was staying.
Procedural Posture:
- Leroy Bussey was charged in federal court with attempted bank robbery and carrying a firearm during an attempted bank robbery.
- The defense filed a motion to suppress incriminating evidence obtained from a search of Bussey's personal luggage in a motel room.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress, ruling that a valid consent to search had been given.
- Following a trial to the court (a bench trial), Bussey was convicted on both counts.
- Bussey, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 abandonment of a criminal plan, after the attempt has proceeded well beyond mere preparation and is only stopped because the plan is discovered to be frustrated, constitute a valid legal defense to the charge of attempt?
Opinions:
Majority - Trask, Circuit Judge
No. A defendant's abandonment of a criminal plan after substantial steps have been taken does not constitute a defense when the abandonment is caused by an unexpected difficulty that frustrates the plan. The court found that Bussey's acts clearly met the test for an attempt, which is an act tending toward the accomplishment of a crime and done in part execution of the criminal design, exceeding mere intent. The court rejected Bussey's abandonment defense, reasoning that it is not sufficient to proceed 'well into the execution' of a crime and only turn away because the plan is 'found to have been frustrated.' The court characterized Bussey's action not as a voluntary abandonment, but as an 'involuntary foiling of his efforts,' which does not negate criminal liability for the attempt.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the legal distinction between a valid abandonment defense and an involuntary frustration of a criminal plan. It solidifies the principle that the crime of attempt is complete once the defendant has taken a substantial step toward the commission of the target offense. The ruling limits the availability of the abandonment defense, making it unavailable to defendants who only cease their criminal efforts because they encounter unforeseen obstacles or realize their plan is impossible. This strengthens the legal framework for prosecuting attempt crimes by focusing on the defendant's conduct up to the point of cessation, rather than their reasons for stopping.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Leroy J. Bussey