Young v. State
303 Md. 298, 493 A.2d 352 (1985) (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person is guilty of a criminal attempt when, with the intent to commit a crime, they engage in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime. This conduct must be strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal intention.
Facts:
- Police observed Raymond Alexander Young driving in a manner suggesting he was surveilling or "casing" several banks in the Oxon Hill-Fort Washington area.
- Young was seen clipping a police scanner onto his belt before parking his car at the rear of the Fort Washington branch of the First National Bank of Southern Maryland.
- He put on a disguise consisting of a blue knit stocking cap, sunglasses, white gloves, and a black eyepatch, and turned up his jacket collar.
- With his right hand in his jacket pocket, which contained a loaded .22 caliber revolver, Young walked to the front door of the bank.
- Young tried to open the bank's front door with his left hand, but found it was locked as the bank had just closed for the day.
- Upon discovering the door was locked, Young covered his face with his hand and ran back to his car to flee the scene.
- When police stopped him, they found the disguise items and the loaded handgun.
- As he was being taken away, Young asked an officer, "how much time you could get for attempted bank robbery."
Procedural Posture:
- Raymond Alexander Young was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County (a trial court) of attempted armed robbery and a handgun violation.
- Young appealed his conviction to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the state's intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgments.
- Young then petitioned the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court, for a writ of certiorari, which the court granted to decide the sole issue of whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction for attempted armed robbery.
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 an individual's conduct, including casing a bank, disguising oneself, possessing a loaded handgun, and physically attempting to open the bank's locked door, constitute a substantial step toward the commission of armed robbery, thus satisfying the overt act requirement for the crime of attempted armed robbery?
Opinions:
Majority - Orth, J.
Yes. An individual's conduct constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of a crime when it is strongly corroborative of their criminal intent. The court formally adopted the "substantial step" test from the Model Penal Code to determine when conduct moves beyond mere preparation to a criminal attempt. The court rejected other approaches like the "proximity" or "equivocality" tests as less practical. Applying the new standard, the court found Young's actions—including his surveillance of the bank, use of a disguise and police scanner, possession of a loaded weapon, and culminating in his physical attempt to enter the bank—were collectively and individually a substantial step that was strongly corroborative of his intent to commit armed robbery. Even if his prior actions were mere preparation, the act of trying the door was unequivocally a substantial step toward perpetrating the crime.
Analysis:
This landmark Maryland case formally abandons traditional, often confusing tests for criminal attempt, such as the proximity test, in favor of the more modern "substantial step" test articulated in the Model Penal Code. By adopting this standard, the court provided a clearer and more practical framework for determining criminal liability for attempts, aligning Maryland with a majority of federal and state jurisdictions. This decision empowers law enforcement to intervene at an earlier stage, once a suspect has taken a substantial step corroborating their criminal purpose, without having to wait until the crime is dangerously close to completion. The ruling clarifies the line between non-criminal preparation and a punishable criminal attempt, focusing on the defendant's demonstrated intent through their actions.
Unlock the full brief for Young v. State