Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Attempt Liability
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Attempt LiabilityQuestion 1 of 20

A defendant, planning to kidnap a wealthy executive for ransom, created a fake social media profile to befriend the executive's teenage child. Over several weeks, he cultivated a friendship and persuaded the child to meet him at a secluded park gazebo. On the appointed day, the defendant drove to the park with rope and duct tape in his car. He was sitting in the gazebo waiting for the child to arrive when he was arrested by police, who had been alerted by the child's suspicious parents.

Is the defendant likely to be convicted of attempted kidnapping? Select one.

No, but he could be convicted of solicitation of a minor, which is a more appropriate charge for these facts.
No, because he never made physical contact with the child, so his actions constituted mere preparation.
No, because the child was never in actual danger due to the police intervention before the meeting.
Yes, because luring the victim to a specific location and arriving there with kidnapping tools is a substantial step.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Attempt Liability

Practice Attempt Liability in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Attempt Liability, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

A defendant, planning to kidnap a wealthy executive for ransom, created a fake social media profile to befriend the executive's teenage child. Over several weeks, he cultivated a friendship and persuaded the child to meet him at a secluded park gazebo. On the appointed day, the defendant drove to the park with rope and duct tape in his car. He was sitting in the gazebo waiting for the child to arrive when he was arrested by police, who had been alerted by the child's suspicious parents.

Is the defendant likely to be convicted of attempted kidnapping? Select one.

  1. No, but he could be convicted of solicitation of a minor, which is a more appropriate charge for these facts.
  2. No, because he never made physical contact with the child, so his actions constituted mere preparation.
  3. No, because the child was never in actual danger due to the police intervention before the meeting.
  4. Yes, because luring the victim to a specific location and arriving there with kidnapping tools is a substantial step. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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.

Question 2

A professional pickpocket, intending to steal a wallet, saw a person with a bulging back pocket standing in a crowded subway car. The pickpocket skillfully reached into the person's pocket. However, the pocket was empty. The pickpocket was observed by a plainclothes police officer, who immediately arrested him.

Can the pickpocket be properly convicted of attempted larceny? Select one.

  1. Yes, because his intent to steal and the act of placing his hand in the pocket are sufficient for an attempt conviction. (correct answer)
  2. No, because the crime of larceny was factually impossible to complete since the pocket was empty.
  3. No, because an essential element of larceny, the taking of property of another, was not present.
  4. Yes, but only if the jurisdiction has a specific statute criminalizing attempted pickpocketing regardless of success.
Explanation: 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.

Question 3

Two men planned to rob a jewelry store. They obtained illegal firearms, ski masks, and a stolen car for the getaway. They drove to the store and parked in an adjacent alley to observe the flow of customers and security personnel. After watching the store for 30 minutes and discussing their final plan of entry, they were arrested by police who had been monitoring their activities based on a tip.

If the men are charged with attempted robbery, are they likely to be convicted? Select one.

  1. Yes, because their reconnaissance of the store while possessing the necessary tools for the crime constituted a substantial step. (correct answer)
  2. No, because they never left their vehicle or made any overt act toward entering the store, so their actions were mere preparation.
  3. No, because an agreement between two people to commit a crime constitutes conspiracy, not attempt.
  4. Yes, because acquiring illegal firearms with the intent to commit a felony is sufficient for an attempt conviction.
Explanation: 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.

Question 4

A man decided to kill his estranged wife. He purchased a rifle and ammunition legally. Over the next month, he practiced extensively at a local firing range. He also used online maps to study the layout of her apartment complex and determine the best vantage point. Police were alerted by a friend in whom the man had confided his plan. They arrested the man at his home two days before he intended to carry out the act. The rifle was found in a locked case in his closet.

Is the man likely to be convicted of attempted murder? Select one.

  1. No, because his actions, while demonstrating intent, had not yet crossed the line from mere preparation to a substantial step. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because purchasing the murder weapon with the specific intent to kill is sufficient to constitute an attempt.
  3. Yes, because he confided his detailed plan to a friend, which strongly corroborates his criminal purpose.
  4. No, because he could have abandoned his plan at any point before the intended day of the crime.
Explanation: 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.

Question 5

A defendant, planning to kidnap a wealthy executive for ransom, created a fake social media profile to befriend the executive's teenage child. Over several weeks, he cultivated a friendship and persuaded the child to meet him at a secluded park gazebo. On the appointed day, the defendant drove to the park with rope and duct tape in his car. He was sitting in the gazebo waiting for the child to arrive when he was arrested by police, who had been alerted by the child's suspicious parents.

Is the defendant likely to be convicted of attempted kidnapping? Select one.

  1. No, but he could be convicted of solicitation of a minor, which is a more appropriate charge for these facts.
  2. No, because he never made physical contact with the child, so his actions constituted mere preparation.
  3. No, because the child was never in actual danger due to the police intervention before the meeting.
  4. Yes, because luring the victim to a specific location and arriving there with kidnapping tools is a substantial step. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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.

Question 6

A state's criminal code defines burglary as "breaking and entering a dwelling at night with the intent to commit a felony therein." A defendant intended to burglarize a house to steal jewelry. He went to the house at 10 p.m., used a credit card to slip the lock on the front door, and was arrested the moment he stepped inside. The defendant argues that because the door was unlocked, his use of a credit card did not constitute a "breaking." Assume for the purposes of this question that his argument is correct and no "breaking" occurred under state law.

Even if no "breaking" occurred, can the defendant be convicted of attempted burglary? Select one.

  1. No, because his mistaken belief that his action constituted a breaking is a mistake of law, which is a defense to attempt.
  2. No, because if his acts, fully carried out, would not be a completed crime, he cannot be guilty of an attempt.
  3. Yes, because he had the intent to commit burglary and his entry into the house was a substantial step. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because his mistake about what constitutes a legal "breaking" is a form of factual impossibility, which is not a defense.
Explanation: 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.

Question 7

A man entered a bank, approached a teller, and handed her a note that read: "I have a bomb. Put all the money in a bag now." The man kept one hand in his pocket, as if holding a detonator. The teller, who had just completed hostage-situation training, calmly pressed a silent alarm and stalled for time. Police arrived and arrested the man. A search revealed he had no bomb or any weapon.

Is the man likely to be convicted of attempted robbery? Select one.

  1. No, because he never received any money from the teller.
  2. No, because the teller was not actually intimidated or placed in fear by his threat.
  3. No, because he did not have the actual ability to carry out the threat, making the crime impossible.
  4. Yes, because his note and actions constituted a threat of force in an attempt to take property. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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.

Question 8

A defendant planned to commit arson against a rival's business by using a sophisticated chemical timer. He built the device, purchased the flammable chemicals, and broke into the business at night. He placed the device and chemicals in the basement, set the timer to ignite the chemicals in six hours, and left the premises. Four hours later, he had a change of heart. He called the fire department, confessed his plan, and told them how to find and disarm the device before it went off, which they did.

The defendant is charged with attempted arson. He asserts the defense of abandonment. Is the defense likely to succeed? Select one.

  1. No, because the attempt was complete once he placed the device and left the building.
  2. No, because his renunciation was not voluntary as he likely feared eventual discovery.
  3. Yes, because he voluntarily and completely prevented the commission of the crime. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because by alerting the fire department, he showed that he never had the requisite malicious intent for arson.
Explanation: 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.

Question 9

An accountant at a large corporation devised a scheme to embezzle funds by altering electronic payment records. Late one Friday, he went to his office, logged into the secure accounting system, and navigated to the vendor payment module. Just as he was about to enter the fraudulent data, he noticed an email from the company's CFO announcing a surprise, real-time audit of all transactions beginning the following Monday. Fearing his scheme would be immediately discovered, he logged out and went home, deciding to wait a few months before trying again.

If charged with attempted embezzlement, can the accountant successfully claim the defense of abandonment? Select one.

  1. Yes, because he ceased his criminal conduct before any funds were transferred.
  2. No, because his renunciation was not complete, as he intended to try again later. (correct answer)
  3. Yes, because his decision to stop was the result of his own internal thought process after reading the email.
  4. No, because his actions had not yet constituted a substantial step beyond mere preparation.
Explanation: 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.

Question 10

Two men planned to rob a jewelry store. They obtained illegal firearms, ski masks, and a stolen car for the getaway. They drove to the store and parked in an adjacent alley to observe the flow of customers and security personnel. After watching the store for 30 minutes and discussing their final plan of entry, they were arrested by police who had been monitoring their activities based on a tip.

If the men are charged with attempted robbery, are they likely to be convicted? Select one.

  1. Yes, because their reconnaissance of the store while possessing the necessary tools for the crime constituted a substantial step. (correct answer)
  2. No, because they never left their vehicle or made any overt act toward entering the store, so their actions were mere preparation.
  3. No, because an agreement between two people to commit a crime constitutes conspiracy, not attempt.
  4. Yes, because acquiring illegal firearms with the intent to commit a felony is sufficient for an attempt conviction.
Explanation: 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.

Question 11

A man decided to kill his estranged wife. He purchased a rifle and ammunition legally. Over the next month, he practiced extensively at a local firing range. He also used online maps to study the layout of her apartment complex and determine the best vantage point. Police were alerted by a friend in whom the man had confided his plan. They arrested the man at his home two days before he intended to carry out the act. The rifle was found in a locked case in his closet.

Is the man likely to be convicted of attempted murder? Select one.

  1. No, because his actions, while demonstrating intent, had not yet crossed the line from mere preparation to a substantial step. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because purchasing the murder weapon with the specific intent to kill is sufficient to constitute an attempt.
  3. Yes, because he confided his detailed plan to a friend, which strongly corroborates his criminal purpose.
  4. No, because he could have abandoned his plan at any point before the intended day of the crime.
Explanation: 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.

Question 12

A man, holding a grudge against a former colleague, drove to the colleague's house intending to shoot him. He parked down the street, got out of his car with a loaded handgun, and crept toward the house. He took cover behind some bushes and aimed the gun at the front window, where he saw a silhouette he believed to be the colleague. He fired one shot, which shattered the window, and then fled. The house was empty at the time; the silhouette was a cardboard cutout placed there for a party.

The man is charged with attempted murder. Is a conviction likely? Select one.

  1. Yes, because he had the intent to kill and took the substantial step of firing the gun at his intended victim. (correct answer)
  2. No, because the house was empty, so it was impossible for him to commit the murder as planned.
  3. No, because no one was actually harmed, so at most he can be convicted of property damage and reckless endangerment.
  4. Yes, but only if the prosecution can prove the cardboard cutout looked reasonably like a person from his vantage point.
Explanation: 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.

Question 13

A woman paid a man she believed to be a professional hitman $20,000 to murder her business partner. She provided the man with her partner's photograph, home address, and daily schedule. The man was actually an undercover police officer. He took the money and information, and then immediately signaled for other officers to arrest the woman.

The woman is charged with attempted murder. Which of the following is her strongest defense to that specific charge? Select one.

  1. The police officer's conduct in posing as a hitman and accepting money constitutes entrapment.
  2. The police officer never intended to carry out the murder, making the crime factually impossible to complete.
  3. She could have contacted the officer and withdrawn from the plan before he acted, so the attempt was not complete.
  4. Her actions constitute solicitation to commit murder, which is a separate offense and does not rise to the level of attempted murder. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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).

Question 14

A professional pickpocket, intending to steal a wallet, saw a person with a bulging back pocket standing in a crowded subway car. The pickpocket skillfully reached into the person's pocket. However, the pocket was empty. The pickpocket was observed by a plainclothes police officer, who immediately arrested him.

Can the pickpocket be properly convicted of attempted larceny? Select one.

  1. Yes, because his intent to steal and the act of placing his hand in the pocket are sufficient for an attempt conviction. (correct answer)
  2. No, because the crime of larceny was factually impossible to complete since the pocket was empty.
  3. No, because an essential element of larceny, the taking of property of another, was not present.
  4. Yes, but only if the jurisdiction has a specific statute criminalizing attempted pickpocketing regardless of success.
Explanation: 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.

Question 15

A state statute makes it a strict liability offense to sell alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21. An adult bartender, intending to sell a six-pack of beer to a customer he knew to be 19 years old, took the beer to the cash register. Just as he was about to complete the transaction, the bar's manager intervened and stopped the sale. Unbeknownst to both the bartender and the manager, the customer was actually a 23-year-old undercover police officer.

Can the bartender be convicted of attempting to sell alcohol to a person under 21? Select one.

  1. 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. (correct answer)
  2. No, because the target crime is a strict liability offense, and one cannot be guilty of attempting to commit a strict liability crime.
  3. No, because the customer was not actually underage, meaning an essential element of the crime was absent.
  4. No, because the manager's intervention prevented the completion of the sale, which negates the bartender's criminal liability.
Explanation: 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.

Question 16

A defendant was approached by an undercover police officer who offered to sell him a new, high-end television for an exceptionally low price. The officer told the defendant that the television was stolen. In fact, the television was police property and had never been stolen. The defendant, believing the television was stolen, purchased it from the officer and was immediately arrested.

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.

  1. Yes, because the defendant had the specific intent to receive stolen property and took the step of purchasing the television.
  2. Yes, because factual impossibility, such as the property not actually being stolen, is not a defense to attempt.
  3. No, because the defendant's actions, if completed as he intended, would not constitute a crime. (correct answer)
  4. No, because the police officer's actions constituted entrapment, which is a complete defense.
Explanation: 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.

Question 17

A hunter was in a forest on the last day of deer hunting season. He saw a deer and shot it. The hunter believed that hunting season had ended the previous day and that his act was illegal poaching. However, he was mistaken about the date; the season was, in fact, still open for one more day, making his hunt perfectly legal. A game warden, who observed the hunt, cited him for attempting to hunt out of season.

Is the hunter likely to be convicted of attempting to hunt out of season? Select one.

  1. No, because his actions did not cause the harm the poaching statute was designed to prevent.
  2. Yes, because he had the specific intent to violate the law, which is sufficient for an attempt conviction.
  3. Yes, because his mistake as to the date is a mistake of fact, which is not a defense to attempt.
  4. No, because the act he committed—hunting a deer in season—was not a crime. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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.

Question 18

A hunter was in a forest on the last day of deer hunting season. He saw a deer and shot it. The hunter believed that hunting season had ended the previous day and that his act was illegal poaching. However, he was mistaken about the date; the season was, in fact, still open for one more day, making his hunt perfectly legal. A game warden, who observed the hunt, cited him for attempting to hunt out of season.

Is the hunter likely to be convicted of attempting to hunt out of season? Select one.

  1. No, because his actions did not cause the harm the poaching statute was designed to prevent.
  2. Yes, because he had the specific intent to violate the law, which is sufficient for an attempt conviction.
  3. Yes, because his mistake as to the date is a mistake of fact, which is not a defense to attempt.
  4. No, because the act he committed—hunting a deer in season—was not a crime. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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.

Question 19

A man entered a bank, approached a teller, and handed her a note that read: "I have a bomb. Put all the money in a bag now." The man kept one hand in his pocket, as if holding a detonator. The teller, who had just completed hostage-situation training, calmly pressed a silent alarm and stalled for time. Police arrived and arrested the man. A search revealed he had no bomb or any weapon.

Is the man likely to be convicted of attempted robbery? Select one.

  1. No, because he never received any money from the teller.
  2. No, because the teller was not actually intimidated or placed in fear by his threat.
  3. No, because he did not have the actual ability to carry out the threat, making the crime impossible.
  4. Yes, because his note and actions constituted a threat of force in an attempt to take property. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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.

Question 20

A state's criminal code defines burglary as "breaking and entering a dwelling at night with the intent to commit a felony therein." A defendant intended to burglarize a house to steal jewelry. He went to the house at 10 p.m., used a credit card to slip the lock on the front door, and was arrested the moment he stepped inside. The defendant argues that because the door was unlocked, his use of a credit card did not constitute a "breaking." Assume for the purposes of this question that his argument is correct and no "breaking" occurred under state law.

Even if no "breaking" occurred, can the defendant be convicted of attempted burglary? Select one.

  1. No, because his mistaken belief that his action constituted a breaking is a mistake of law, which is a defense to attempt.
  2. No, because if his acts, fully carried out, would not be a completed crime, he cannot be guilty of an attempt.
  3. Yes, because he had the intent to commit burglary and his entry into the house was a substantial step. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because his mistake about what constitutes a legal "breaking" is a form of factual impossibility, which is not a defense.
Explanation: 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.