- If the men are charged with attempted robbery, are they likely to be convicted? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because their reconnaissance of the store while possessing the necessary tools for the crime constituted a substantial step.
The correct answer is A. Under the substantial step test (used in the Model Penal Code and many states), acts such as reconnaissance of the place contemplated for the commission of the crime, while in possession of materials specially designed for such unlawful use, can constitute a substantial step. Here, the men's surveillance of the store, combined with their possession of guns, masks, and a getaway car, strongly corroborates their criminal purpose and goes beyond mere preparation. B is a plausible but incorrect argument, as a substantial step does not require the defendant to have begun the final consummation of the crime. C is incorrect because while the facts may also support a conspiracy charge, they can separately support an attempt charge once a substantial step is taken. D is incorrect because acquiring the tools, without more, is often considered preparation.
- Is the defendant likely to be convicted of attempted kidnapping? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because luring the victim to a specific location and arriving there with kidnapping tools is a substantial step.
When you encounter an attempted crime question, focus on whether the defendant took a "substantial step" toward completing the offense while having the requisite intent. Attempted kidnapping requires proof that the defendant intended to kidnap someone and performed acts that moved beyond mere preparation toward actually committing the crime.
Here, the defendant clearly intended to kidnap the executive's child for ransom. His actions went well beyond preparation: he created an elaborate deception, lured the victim to a specific, secluded location, and arrived there equipped with kidnapping tools (rope and duct tape). This demonstrates a substantial step toward completion of the kidnapping. The fact that he was positioned at the exact meeting spot, ready to act when the victim arrived, shows he was dangerously close to completing the crime.
Choice A is wrong because while solicitation might also apply, it doesn't preclude an attempted kidnapping charge, which better fits these facts involving substantial steps toward completion. Choice B incorrectly characterizes these actions as "mere preparation" - bringing kidnapping tools to the planned crime scene goes beyond preparation into the realm of attempt. Choice C misunderstands attempt doctrine; the victim doesn't need to be in actual danger for an attempt to occur, only that the defendant took substantial steps with criminal intent.
Remember that for attempt charges, the key dividing line is substantial steps versus mere preparation. Look for defendants who have moved beyond planning and taken concrete actions that bring them dangerously close to completing the target crime - like arriving at the crime scene with tools and a specific plan.
- If the woman is charged with attempted arson, which of the following is her strongest defense? Select one.
Answer: She completely and voluntarily abandoned her criminal purpose before completing the crime.
The correct answer is B. Most modern jurisdictions recognize abandonment (or renunciation) as a defense to attempt if the defendant voluntarily and completely renounces their criminal purpose. Here, the woman's change of heart was internal (remorse) and not due to an increased risk of detection or difficulty in completing the crime, making it voluntary. She left the scene, indicating a complete renunciation. A is incorrect because pouring gasoline around a building is a classic example of a substantial step. C is incorrect because a desire for revenge is evidence of malicious intent, not a defense. D is incorrect because the absence of actual damage is the reason the charge is attempt, not the completed crime of arson.
- Even if no "breaking" occurred, can the defendant be convicted of attempted burglary? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because he had the intent to commit burglary and his entry into the house was a substantial step.
The correct answer is C. Even if the defendant's act did not satisfy the technical 'breaking' element of the completed crime, he is still liable for attempt. He had the specific intent to commit burglary (which includes the intent to break and enter to commit a felony) and took a substantial step by entering the dwelling. The modern view is that a defendant can be guilty of attempting a crime even if, for reasons of fact or law unknown to him, the completed crime was impossible. A and B incorrectly describe the modern rule of impossibility. This situation is best analyzed as a type of factual impossibility; the defendant intended to commit a crime, and his failure to complete it was due to a factual circumstance (the nature of the lock) or a legal technicality. D is close, but C is better because it correctly states the affirmative reason for his guilt—intent plus a substantial step—rather than just focusing on the inapplicability of a defense.
- The defendant is charged with attempted burglary. Is a conviction likely? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because approaching the house with tools constituted a substantial step that strongly corroborated his criminal purpose.
The correct answer is A. For attempt, the prosecution must prove the defendant had the specific intent to commit the target crime and took a substantial step towards its commission. A substantial step is an act or omission that strongly corroborates the actor's criminal purpose. Here, the defendant's actions went beyond mere preparation. By approaching the house at night, dressed in dark clothing, and carrying a crowbar, he took a substantial step toward effectuating the burglary. B is incorrect because a defendant need not reach the final act (e.g., forcing entry) for their conduct to constitute a substantial step. C is incorrect because an external factor preventing the crime's completion is irrelevant to the defendant's liability for attempt. D is incorrect because purchasing tools, by itself, is typically considered mere preparation rather than a substantial step.
- Can the pickpocket be properly convicted of attempted larceny? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because his intent to steal and the act of placing his hand in the pocket are sufficient for an attempt conviction.
The correct answer is A. The pickpocket had the specific intent to commit larceny and took a substantial step by placing his hand in the victim's pocket. The fact that the pocket was empty makes the crime factually impossible to complete. Factual impossibility—where the defendant's intended crime is impossible to complete due to some unknown fact or circumstance—is not a defense to attempt. B is incorrect because factual impossibility is not a valid defense. C is incorrect because while a completed larceny requires a taking of property, an attempted larceny does not; it only requires the intent to take property and a substantial step. D is incorrect because general attempt statutes cover this conduct; a specific statute is not required.
- If charged with attempted embezzlement, can the accountant successfully claim the defense of abandonment? Select one.
Answer: No, because his renunciation was not complete, as he intended to try again later.
The correct answer is B. A valid abandonment defense requires that the renunciation be both voluntary and complete. Here, the accountant did not completely renounce his criminal purpose; he merely postponed it. His intent to try again in a few months defeats the 'complete' element of the defense. Furthermore, his reason for stopping—fear of imminent detection due to the surprise audit—also means the abandonment was not voluntary. A is incorrect because ceasing conduct is not enough; the renunciation must be complete and voluntary. C is incorrect because the thought process was prompted by an external factor increasing the risk of getting caught. D is incorrect because accessing the secure payment module with the tools and intent to commit the fraud is likely a substantial step.
- The defendant is charged with attempted arson. He asserts the defense of abandonment. Is the defense likely to succeed? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because he voluntarily and completely prevented the commission of the crime.
The correct answer is C. The Model Penal Code and many jurisdictions recognize abandonment as a defense if the defendant voluntarily and completely renounces his criminal purpose AND takes steps to prevent the crime's commission if the criminal chain of events is already in motion. Here, the defendant's change of heart appears genuine (voluntary), and he took the necessary step of calling the fire department to thwart his own plan (complete). A is incorrect because even if the attempt is deemed 'complete' in the sense that the defendant has done everything he needs to do, the defense of abandonment by preventing the result is still available in many jurisdictions. B is incorrect as there are no facts to suggest his change of heart was prompted by fear of discovery. D is incorrect because his initial actions clearly show malicious intent; the subsequent abandonment serves as an affirmative defense to a crime that was otherwise already attempted.
- What is the likely outcome of the charge? Select one.
Answer: Conviction, because the defendant had the specific intent to possess heroin and the purchase was a substantial step.
The correct answer is A. This is a classic factual impossibility case. The defendant is guilty of attempt because he had the specific intent to possess heroin and took a substantial step by purchasing the substance. The fact that the substance was not actually heroin, due to a fact unknown to him, is not a defense. B is incorrect because this is factual, not legal, impossibility. Legal impossibility would apply if the defendant thought possessing heroin was illegal when it was actually legal. C is incorrect because for an attempt, the defendant does not need to possess the actual illegal substance, only to intend to and take a substantial step toward doing so. D is incorrect because providing an opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment; there are no facts to suggest the defendant was not predisposed to make the purchase.
- Can the defendant be convicted of attempted second-degree murder under these statutes? Select one.
Answer: No, because attempt requires the specific intent to bring about the criminal result, and the defendant only acted recklessly.
The correct answer is B. A fundamental rule of attempt is that it requires the specific intent to commit the target crime. A defendant cannot attempt to commit a crime that is defined by recklessness or negligence because one cannot intend to be reckless or negligent. To be guilty of attempted murder, the defendant must have had the specific intent to kill. Here, the facts state the defendant acted with extreme recklessness (depraved-heart) but did not intend to kill. Therefore, he cannot be convicted of attempted murder. A is incorrect because for the inchoate crime of attempt, recklessness cannot substitute for specific intent. C is incorrect because foreseeability is a concept related to negligence and proximate cause, not the specific intent required for attempt. D is incorrect because factual impossibility is not a defense, but the charge fails on the mens rea element before the impossibility issue is even reached.
- The woman is charged with attempted murder. Which of the following is her strongest defense to that specific charge? Select one.
Answer: Her actions constitute solicitation to commit murder, which is a separate offense and does not rise to the level of attempted murder.
This question tests your understanding of the distinction between different inchoate crimes—specifically, when conduct constitutes solicitation versus attempted murder. When someone hires another person to commit a crime, you need to analyze whether their actions go beyond mere solicitation.
Answer D correctly identifies that the woman's conduct constitutes solicitation to commit murder, not attempted murder. Solicitation occurs when someone requests, encourages, or commands another person to commit a crime. Here, the woman hired what she believed was a hitman and provided all necessary information, but she did not take any direct steps toward committing the murder herself. The crime remains at the solicitation level because she was relying entirely on another person to carry out the killing.
Answer A incorrectly claims entrapment. Entrapment requires that law enforcement induced someone to commit a crime they weren't predisposed to commit. Since the woman initiated contact believing she was hiring a real hitman, this shows predisposition, defeating any entrapment defense.
Answer B misapplies the impossibility defense. While the officer never intended to kill anyone (factual impossibility), this doesn't help the woman because factual impossibility is generally not a defense to attempt crimes. More importantly, she's not guilty of attempted murder in the first place.
Answer C incorrectly suggests the attempt was incomplete due to possible withdrawal. However, this mischaracterizes both the nature of her conduct (solicitation, not attempt) and withdrawal requirements.
Remember: On criminal law questions involving hiring others to commit crimes, first determine whether the defendant took direct steps toward the criminal act themselves (attempt) or merely enlisted another person's help (solicitation).
- Is the hunter likely to be convicted of attempting to hunt out of season? Select one.
Answer: No, because the act he committed—hunting a deer in season—was not a crime.
This question tests the fundamental principle that criminal attempt requires both intent to commit a crime and an act that, if completed, would actually constitute a crime.
For attempt liability, you need two elements: (1) specific intent to commit the underlying crime, and (2) a substantial step toward committing that crime. Crucially, the completed act must actually be criminal for attempt liability to attach. Here, while the hunter intended to hunt illegally, the act he actually performed—hunting deer during open season—was perfectly legal.
Answer D correctly identifies this fatal flaw in the prosecution's case. Since hunting deer in season is lawful, there's no crime to attempt. The law doesn't punish people for completing legal acts, even when they mistakenly believe those acts are illegal.
Answer A is incorrect because it focuses on harm rather than the legal elements of attempt. Attempt crimes don't require actual harm—they punish the intent and act of trying to commit a crime.
Answer B misses the essential point that intent alone isn't sufficient. You also need an act that would constitute a crime if successful. The hunter's intent to break the law is irrelevant when his actual conduct was legal.
Answer C incorrectly characterizes the hunter's mistake. His mistake about the date isn't a mistake of fact that defeats attempt liability—it's the reason why his completed act wasn't criminal in the first place.
Remember: impossibility can be a defense to attempt when the completed act wouldn't actually be criminal. Always ask whether the defendant's actual conduct, if successful, would constitute the target crime.
- The thief is later arrested and charged with attempted burglary. He raises the defense of abandonment. Is this defense likely to succeed? Select one.
Answer: No, because his abandonment was motivated by a fear of imminent apprehension, not a genuine change of heart.
The correct answer is C. The defense of abandonment requires that the defendant's renunciation of criminal purpose be both complete and voluntary. An abandonment is not considered voluntary if it is motivated by circumstances that increase the probability of detection or apprehension, or that make the crime more difficult to complete. Here, the thief fled because he heard a police siren and feared he was about to be caught. This is not a voluntary abandonment. A is incorrect because the defense depends on the reason for termination, not just the fact of it. B is incorrect because the motivation (fear of getting caught) is what makes the abandonment involuntary, regardless of the siren's exact proximity. D is incorrect because most jurisdictions that recognize the defense allow it even after a substantial step has been taken, as long as the crime is not yet complete.
- Is the man likely to be convicted of attempted robbery? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because his note and actions constituted a threat of force in an attempt to take property.
This question tests your understanding of attempted robbery, specifically whether completion of the crime or actual ability to carry out threats is required for conviction.
Attempted robbery requires proving the defendant intended to commit robbery and took a substantial step toward completing it. Robbery itself is the taking of property from another person through force or intimidation. The man clearly demonstrated intent by demanding money and mimicked having a bomb while keeping his hand in his pocket as if holding a detonator. These actions constitute both the threat of force and a substantial step toward robbery, satisfying the elements for attempted robbery.
Choice A is wrong because completion isn't required for attempt crimes - you only need intent plus a substantial step toward the crime. The fact that no money changed hands doesn't negate the attempt. Choice B is incorrect because the teller's subjective fear isn't the test; what matters is whether the defendant's actions would reasonably appear threatening to an ordinary person. The teller's professional training doesn't change the threatening nature of the defendant's conduct. Choice C reflects a misunderstanding of impossibility in criminal law. Legal impossibility (where the act wouldn't be criminal even if completed) can be a defense, but factual impossibility (lacking the means to complete the crime) generally isn't. Here, the man's lack of an actual bomb represents factual impossibility, which doesn't prevent conviction for attempt.
Choice D correctly identifies that the threatening note combined with the deceptive hand gesture constituted sufficient force/intimidation for attempted robbery, regardless of whether he possessed actual weapons.
Remember: For attempt crimes, focus on intent and substantial steps taken, not whether the defendant could actually complete the crime or whether they succeeded.
- In a jurisdiction that recognizes the defense of legal impossibility, is the defendant likely to be convicted of attempting to receive stolen property? Select one.
Answer: No, because the defendant's actions, if completed as he intended, would not constitute a crime.
The correct answer is C. This scenario presents a case of legal impossibility. The defendant intended to commit an act (receiving property that he believed was stolen) that, if the facts were as he believed them to be, would be a crime. However, the act he actually committed—receiving property that was not stolen—is not a crime. In a jurisdiction recognizing legal impossibility, a defendant cannot be guilty of attempting to do something that is not illegal. A is incorrect because intent alone is insufficient if the attempted act is not criminal. B is incorrect because this is a case of legal impossibility, not factual impossibility. Factual impossibility arises when the intended crime fails because of a fact unknown to the defendant (e.g., trying to pick an empty pocket). D is incorrect because the facts do not support entrapment, as there is no indication the defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime.
- Is the woman guilty of attempted murder? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because she had the specific intent to kill and her act of administering the powder was a substantial step.
The correct answer is A. The woman is guilty of attempted murder based on the doctrine of factual impossibility. She had the specific intent to kill her husband (mens rea) and took a substantial step toward doing so by administering what she believed was poison (actus reus). The fact that the substance was harmless is a factual circumstance unknown to her that prevented the crime's completion. Factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt. B is incorrect because the lack of actual danger to the victim is not determinative; what matters is the defendant's intent and the steps taken in furtherance of that intent. C is incorrect for the same reason; the act is evaluated based on the defendant's belief about the circumstances. D is incorrect because this is a case of factual impossibility, not legal impossibility.
- Is the man likely to be convicted of attempted murder? Select one.
Answer: No, because his actions, while demonstrating intent, had not yet crossed the line from mere preparation to a substantial step.
The correct answer is A. While the man clearly had the specific intent to commit murder, his actions likely constitute mere preparation rather than a substantial step. Purchasing a weapon, practicing with it, and researching the location are all preparatory acts. For attempt, the defendant must typically be in the process of executing the crime or be dangerously close to its completion. Here, he was arrested at home two days before he planned to act. B is incorrect because purchasing a weapon is almost always considered preparation. C is incorrect because while his statement shows intent, it doesn't transform his preparatory acts into a substantial step. D is incorrect because the possibility of future abandonment doesn't negate an attempt if a substantial step has already been taken; however, here, such a step has not been taken.
- Can the bartender be convicted of attempting to sell alcohol to a person under 21? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because he intended to sell alcohol to a person he believed was underage, and the fact that the person was not is no defense.
The correct answer is A. To be guilty of attempt, a defendant must have the specific intent to commit the target offense. Here, the bartender specifically intended to sell alcohol to a person he believed was 19. He also took a substantial step by bringing the beer to the register. The fact that the customer was not actually underage is a classic example of factual impossibility, which is not a defense to attempt. B is incorrect because one can attempt to commit a strict liability crime, as long as the defendant has the specific intent to bring about the proscribed result. C is incorrect because for attempt, the defendant's belief about the facts is what matters, not the actual facts. D is incorrect because intervention by a third party does not absolve the defendant of liability for the attempt already underway.
- Is the defendant guilty of attempted wire fraud? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because he sent the fraudulent emails with the intent to deceive and took a substantial step toward obtaining money.
The correct answer is A. The defendant had the specific intent to obtain money by false pretenses (fraud) and took a substantial step by creating the website and sending the solicitation emails. The success of the scheme is irrelevant for an attempt conviction. The fact that the intended victims were not deceived is a form of factual impossibility, which is not a defense. B is incorrect because while actual deception is an element of the completed crime of fraud, it is not required for an attempt. C is incorrect because disseminating the fraudulent solicitation is a significant act that strongly corroborates the criminal purpose and goes far beyond mere preparation. D is incorrect because the substantial step was the sending of the emails with fraudulent intent; it is not necessary for a recipient to have taken further action.
- The man is charged with attempted murder. Is a conviction likely? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because he had the intent to kill and took the substantial step of firing the gun at his intended victim.
The correct answer is A. The defendant had the specific intent to kill, evidenced by his actions and motive. He took a substantial step—in fact, the last act he believed necessary—by firing the gun at the person he believed to be his colleague. This is sufficient for attempted murder. B is incorrect because the absence of the victim is a factual impossibility, which is not a defense to attempt. C is incorrect because the lack of actual harm to a person is what makes the crime an attempt rather than a completed murder; it does not negate guilt for the attempt. D is incorrect because the reasonableness of his mistake is irrelevant; what matters is that he subjectively believed he was shooting at his colleague.
