Jack, Bert, and Pratt
William A. Hall
CJ230: Criminal Procedure
January 29, 2013
In this paper I will be discussing whether the court was correct in dismissing the attempted murder charge. I will describe the elements of a criminal act and address impossibility and distinguish if it is a complete or incomplete attempt. I think that the courts were wrong in dismissing the charges against Jack in the attempted murder of Bert. As the textbook states a criminal intent involves a dual intent: * An individual must intentionally perform acts that are proximate to the completion of a crime. * An individual must possess the specific intent or purpose to achieve a criminal objective. To be charged with attempt there are three legal tests for the actus reus. All three ask whether an individual’s actions clearly indicate intent to commit a crime. (Lippman, M. 2007). Physical Proximity to the commission of a crime. Defendant’s actions are close to completing the crime. The focus is on the remaining steps required to complete the crime. (Lippman, M. 2007). I believe that Jack's actions of pointing the gun and pulling the trigger at Bert are the remaining step in completing the attempted murder of Bert. Whether he achieved his goal or not his intent was shown that he wanted to kill Bert. Unequivocally or clarity of purpose to commit a crime. An ordinary person looking at the defendant’s acts would conclude without a doubt that he or she intended to commit the crime without any other information. (Lippman, M. 2007). From the information provided “Jack attempted to fire again at Bert, but his gun jammed and would not fire.” This would give an ordinary person enough information to be certain without a doubt that Jack did have the intent to murder Bert; the gun jamming prevented Jack, not repentant intentions on Jack’s part. Model Penal Code or the Substantial Step toward the Commission of a Crime. The defendant’s acts are sufficient to clearly indicate that he...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document