State v. Hurley
| Decision Date | 21 May 1906 |
| Citation | 64 A. 78,79 Vt. 28 |
| Parties | STATE v. HURLEY. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Windsor County Court; Willard W. Miles, Judge.
John Hurley was informed against for attempting to break jail and a demurrer to the information was overruled. A verdict of guilty was rendered, and accused brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained, judgment and verdict set aside, demurrer sustained, information held insufficient and quashed, and accused discharged.
Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and TYLER, MUNSON, WATSON, and POWERS, JJ.
Charles Batcbelder, State's Atty. Gilbert A. Davis, for respondent.
The respondent is informed against for attempting to break open the jail in which he was confined by procuring to be delivered into his hands 12 steel hack saws, with an intent to break open the jail therewith. The state's evidence tended to show that, in pursuance of an arrangement between the respondent and one Tracy, a former inmate, Tracy attempted to get a bundle of hack saws to the respondent by throwing it to him as he sat behind the bars at an open window, and that the respondent reached through the bars and got the bundle into his hands but was ordered at that moment by the jailer to drop it, and did so. The court charged in substance that if the respondent arranged for procuring the saws and got them into his possession, with an intent to break open the jail for the purpose of escaping, he was guilty of the offense alleged. The respondent demurred to the information, and excepted to the charge. Bishop defines a criminal attempt to be "an intent to do a particular criminal thing, with an act toward it falling short of the thing intended." 2 Cr. Law, § 728. The main difficulty in applying this definition lies in determining the relation which the act done must sustain to the completed offense. That relation is more fully indicated in the following definition given by Stephen: "An attempt to commit a crime is an act done with intent to commit that crime, and forming part of a series of acts which would constitute its actual commission if it were not interrupted." Dig. Cr. Law, 33. All acts done in preparation are, in a sense, acts done toward the accomplishment of the thing contemplated. But most authorities certainly hold, and many of them state specifically, that the act must be something more than mere preparation. Acts of preparation, however, may have such proximity to the place where the intended crime is to be committed, and such connection with a purpose of present accomplishment, that they will amount to an attempt. See note to People v. Moran (N. Y.) 20 Am. St. Rep. 741; People v. Stites, 75 Cal. 570, 17 Pac. 693; People v. Lawton, 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 126.
Various rules have been formulated in elucidating this subject. Some acts toward the commission of the crime are too remote for the law to notice. The act need not be the one next preceding that needed to complete the crime. Preparations made at a distance from the place where the offense is to be committed are ordinarily too remote to satisfy the requirement. 1 Bish. Cr. Law, §§ 759, 762 (4), 763. The preparation must be such as would be likely to end, if not extraneously interrupted, in the consummation of the crime intended. 3 Am. & Ency. Law (2d Ed.) 266, note 7. The act must be of such a character as to advance the conduct of the actor beyond the sphere of mere intent. It must reach far enough towards the accomplishment of the desired result to amount to the commencement of the consummation. Hicks v. Com., 86 Va. 223, 9 S. E. 1024, 19 Am. St. Rep. 891. But after all that has been said, the application is difficult. One of the best known cases where acts of preparation were held insufficient is People v. Murray, 14 Cal. 159, which was an indictment for an attempt to contract an incestuous marriage. There the defendant had eloped with his niece with the avowed purpose of marrying her, and had taken measures to procure the attendance of a magistrate to perform the ceremony. In disposing of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sawyer
...to commit a crime, coupled with an act that, but for an interruption, would result in the completion of a crime. State v. Hurley, 79 Vt. 28, 31, 64 A. 78, 78 (1906) ; see 13 V.S.A. § 9(a) ("A person who attempts to commit an offense and does an act toward the commission thereof, but by reas......
-
State v. Harrington
...13 V.S.A. § 9; State v. Ciocca, 125 Vt. 64, 74, 209 A.2d 507; State v. Woodmansee, 124 Vt. 387, 391, 205 A.2d 407; State v. Hurley, 79 Vt. 28, 30, 64 A. 78, 6 L.R.A.,N.S., 804. Since the crucial act was done here, our courts have jurisdiction to determine whether it was done with a criminal......
-
State v. Devoid
...act if it "would be likely to end, if not extraneously interrupted, in the consummation of the crime8 A.3d 1080intended." State v. Hurley, 79 Vt. 28, 31, 64 A. 78, 78 (1906). Once an actor commits an overt act, "the offense is complete, and abandonment of the enterprise does not negate guil......
-
State v. Sawyer
...to commit a crime, coupled with an act that, but for an interruption, would result in the completion of a crime. State v. Hurley, 79 Vt. 28, 31, 64 A. 78, 78 (1906); see 13 V.S.A. § 9(a) ("A person who attempts to commit an offense and does an act toward the commission thereof, but by reaso......