Introduction
The concept of attempt refers to an incomplete or inchoate crime where an individual initially was intended to commit a crime and undertook specific actions to complete it but ultimately failed to commit a full offense due to some accidental causes. Inchoate crimes cover “attempts, solicitation, and conspiracies” (Schmalleger and Hall, 2017, p. 94). However, for a person to be accused of an attempt, his actions should be comprised of more than just planning of a crime. In other words, it is necessary to undertake some actions that would lead to the completion of an offense. Such actions are called substantial steps. The punishment for an attempt is less severe in comparison with a full offense because less harm was done to a victim. The current essay is dedicated to the discussion of several cases, including the cases of Tennessee v. Reeves, the United States v. Gladish, the United States v. Thomas, and the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman.
Tennessee v. Reeves
The case of Tennessee v. Reeves refers to the situation of two twelve-year-old girls, Molly Coffman and Tracie Reeves, who wanted to kill their teacher, Janice Geiger, with rat poison and then still her car. Their plan was derailed by the third student, Dean Foutch, who knew about the plan and refused to help them. What is more, he informed the teacher of the girls intentions. Molly Coffman brought poison to school but failed to stir it in the teacher’s coffee. After the investigation, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled their actions to be attempted second-degree murder.
This case raises debates whether their actions illustrate a substantial step. As it was stated by Schmalleger and Hall (2017), an action is a substantial step when it is “strongly corroborative of the actor’s criminal purpose” (p. 95). From one point of view, it seems that the girls were not engaged in enough activity to constitute an attempt offense because they did not stir poison in Geiger’s drink. According to the definition provided above, the fact that they merely discussed the murder is not enough to charge them. From another point of view, one of the girls brought poison to school. Considering the fact that she discussed her will to kill the teacher with her friends, the act of bringing poison to school strongly correlated with her intention to commit a crime.
The opinion of the court corresponds with the second viewpoint. More precisely, the judge deemed that since they possessed rat poison, they had materials to commit the full offense. From my perspective, it seems that there was enough evidence that the girls had taken a substantial step toward the commission of a targeted offense because the implementation of the plan did not end up merely with the phone conversation. They came to school and brought poison with them. What is more, if they were not found guilty of an attempt, they might complete their plan in the future.
The court established the Model Penal Code (MPC) test in Tennessee to determine if a substantial step has been taken. Under the MPC, an act is a substantial step if an actor has a purpose of committing a crime and a substantial step was undertaken (Schmalleger and Hall, 2017). In the case of Tennessee v. Reeves, the actions of Molly Coffman and Tracie Reeves correspond to both criteria. Undoubtedly, the court modifies the legislative enactment of the attempt statute by using standard law rules of construction. However, the new code is attempted at the prevention of crimes.
The United States v. Gladish
A 35-year-old man joined an online chat and persuaded his interlocutor, who he thought was a 14-year-old girl, to have sex with him. Besides, they agreed to spend some time together out of the girl’s home. In reality, the girl was an undercover federal law enforcement agent. Federal prosecutors charged the man with an attempt to engage an underaged person in criminal sexual activity. Nonetheless, in the United States v. Gladish 536 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2008), in contrast to the case of Tennessee v. Reeves, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that the defendant was not guilty of a criminal attempt because he did not undertake substantial steps. The concept of criminal conspiracy implies that if people agreed to commit a crime, then the probability that the crime will be committed in reality increases (Sacharoff, 2016). In the United States v. Gladish, the defendant and his purported interlocutor of 14 years old agreed to have sex.
One could argue that it was enough to discuss this issue to charge Gladish because he clearly stated his attempts and solicited a teenager. Nonetheless, as it is written in the notes of Judge Richard A. Posner, the defendant could not be accused of an attempt of a full offense because he only talked about sex with this girl and never tried to go beyond the chat. More precisely, during the process of communication with his correspondent, he did not mention that he would travel to northern Indiana to meet her, “did not invite her to meet him, and did not know for sure that she was a minor” (Wall, Blanco, & Lambros, 2017, p. 18). Hence, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that his dialogue with the fake-14-year-old-girl is not a sufficient reason to punish him for the attempt to commit a crime. In other words, there were no material justifications for his criminal intentions. From this, it could be inferred that if he bought tickets on a bus to the hometown of a girl or booked a hotel room, the decision of the court would have been different.
The United States v. Thomas
Self-defense could not be regarded as an attempt to commit a crime. However, an individual should prove that his actions indeed were caused by the necessity to defend himself from unavoidable death. It is interesting to notice that self-defense has never been expressly recognized by the Supreme Court as a constitutional right of citizens (Miller, 2017). The four components of self-defense are “imminence of the threat, necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness” (Fields, 2020, p. 9). One of the cases on the issue of self-defense is the one of the United States v. Thomas, 34 F.3d 44 (2nd Cir. 1994). In this law case, the drug seller, Lawrence, was charged with the death of Wallie Howard, the police officer. The defendants, Lawrence and Stewart, asserted that the murder came as a result of self-defense. Nonetheless, the court refused this claim even though Lawrence fired at Howard only after Howard fired at Lawrence’s partner, Stewart. From this perspective, it is an error to refuse to accept Lawrence’s claim on self-defense.
Nevertheless, the situation was more complex. A person who provoked an attack, i.e., an aggressor, cannot later use deadly force to defend himself (Schmalleger and Hall, 2017). Lawrence and Stewart wanted to rob Wallie Howard, the undercover officer, who brought more than $40,000 in cash. Besides, they were armed with two guns and broke the wrist of Howard’s colleague, Gregory, in the fight. Therefore, the defendants themselves created the situation that threatened Howard and became unable to claim self-defense in the shooting.
The logic behind the statement of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on a claim of self-defense is based on the idea that slayers are deprived of a right to explain their actions with self-defense. Only a guiltless person has a right to homicidal self-defense. I find this view a right one because a person who threatens a victim’s life should be ready that a victim will try to defend himself. Thus, an aggressor, who controls his actions, understands that his assault could ultimately put his right in danger. Finally, an aggressor has a choice not to kill his victim, whereas a victim cannot choose whether to put his own life in danger or not.
The state of Florida v. George Zimmerman
In 2021, George Zimmerman, community watch coordinator, was charged with the second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin. The State argued that Zimmerman killed a guiltless Martin, whereas Zimmerman’s attorney announced that the murder was a response to the injures caused by Martin. Ultimately, the State won the case. In contrast to the previously described case of the United States v. Thomas, the peculiarity of this case is that social unrest made the court change the verdict because, initially, Zimmerman was found not guilty. Since Zimmerman is Hispanic and Martin was Black, the public rebelled against the court’s first decision because people believed that it was biased. Another difference with the United States v. Thomas case is that to defend himself of the second-degree murder accusation, Zimmerman relied on the stand-your-ground law. This law permits a person to use deadly force to protect life and limbs “in public spaces with no duty to retreat” (Schmalleger and Hall, 2017, p. 137). Nonetheless, the jury changed the verdict and charged with Zimmerman the murder of Martin.
According to Florida’s stand-your-ground law, a criminal defendant must meet specific criteria to present a stand-your-ground defense successfully. The first element of the stand-your-ground law is that a defendant could use deadly force to prevent “imminent death or great bodily harm” or “imminent commission of a forcible felony” (The Florida Senate, 2018, para. 2). Secondly, the defendant could not be “engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be” (The Florida Senate, 2018, para. 2). Thirdly, the defendant should believe that the only way to protect the life is to use deadly force. In other words, this point means that a person should have no other option but to stand his or her ground. Overall, the defendant’s fear of death should be reasonable and not exaggerated, and the defendant should objectively have no other ways to save his life but use deadly force.
References
Fields, S. (2020). The elusiveness of self-defense for the black transgender community. Nevada Law Journal, Forthcoming. Web.
Miller, D. A. (2017). Self-defense, defense of others, and the state. Law & Contemporary Problems, 80(85), 85-102.
Sacharoff, L. (2016). Conspiracy as Contract. UCDL Review, 50, 405-461.
Schmalleger, F. & Hall, D.E. (2017). Criminal law today (6th ed.). Pearson.
The Florida Senate. 2018 Florida Statutes. MyFloridaHouse.gov. Web.
Wall, J.B., Blanco, K.A., & Lambros, D. (2017). Richard Rutgerson, Petitioner v. United States of America. In the Supreme Court of the United States, 16(759), 1-19. Web.