United States v. Mandujano

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
499 F.2d 370 (1974)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A criminal attempt requires the defendant to act with the culpability otherwise required for the commission of the underlying crime and to engage in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime, which is defined as conduct strongly corroborative of the defendant's criminal intent.

Facts:

On March 29, 1973, undercover police officer Alfonso Cavalier met Roy Mandujano at the Tally-Ho Lounge in San Antonio.
Mandujano offered to sell Cavalier one ounce of 'good brown Mexican heroin' for $650 but stated Cavalier would have to wait for his regular supplier.
When Cavalier said he could not wait, Mandujano offered to find another source and made several unsuccessful phone calls.
Mandujano then told Cavalier he had a contact who kept narcotics at home but that he would need the $650 'out front' to complete the transaction.
To reassure Cavalier, Mandujano noted that his wife and business were at the lounge, so he would not abscond with the money.
Cavalier gave Mandujano $650 in cash, and Mandujano left the bar.
Approximately one hour later, Mandujano returned, stated he was unable to locate his contact, and gave the $650 back to Cavalier.

Procedural Posture:

Roy Mandujano was charged by indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas with attempted distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
The case was tried before a jury.
The jury returned a verdict finding Mandujano guilty.
The district court entered a judgment of conviction and imposed a fifteen-year sentence.
Mandujano (appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with the United States as the appellee.

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 negotiation of a drug sale and acceptance of payment constitute a 'substantial step' toward the commission of the crime, sufficient to support a conviction for attempted distribution of a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 846, even if the defendant does not possess the drugs and ultimately fails to deliver them?

Opinions:

Majority - Rives, Circuit Judge

Yes, a defendant's actions of negotiating a drug sale and accepting payment constitute a substantial step toward the commission of the crime sufficient for a conviction of attempted distribution. To establish a criminal attempt, the government must prove two elements: (1) the defendant was acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the crime he is charged with attempting, and (2) the defendant engaged in conduct which constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime. A substantial step must be conduct that is more than mere preparation and is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the defendant's criminal intent. In this case, Mandujano's explicit negotiations and, most importantly, his request for and receipt of the $650 payment, constituted a substantial step that strongly corroborated his specific intent to distribute heroin. The fact that he was ultimately unsuccessful and returned the money does not negate the crime of attempt, which was complete once he took that substantial step.

Analysis:

This case is significant for establishing a clear, two-part test for criminal attempt in the Fifth Circuit, adopting the 'substantial step' framework favored by the Model Penal Code. By moving away from vague common law doctrines like 'dangerous proximity,' the court provided a more concrete standard for distinguishing mere preparation from a criminal attempt. This 'substantial step strongly corroborative of intent' test has become influential in federal jurisprudence, clarifying for prosecutors and defendants what level of conduct crosses the threshold into criminal liability for an inchoate offense.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Mandujano (1974)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature