Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the crime of attempt. State v. Martens, 274 Kan. 459, 466, 54 P.3d 960 (2002). We have previously determined that the crime of attempted rape does not require evidence of attempted penetration. State v. Gonzales, 245 Kan. 691, 698, 783 P.2d 1239 (1989). Although the overt act does not have to be the last proximate act in the consummation of the crime, it must be either the first or some subsequent step in a direct movement toward the commission of the crime after the preparations are made. Hedges, 269 Kan. at 905. Mere preparations include “devising or arranging the means or measures necessary” for committing the offense. State v. Garner, 237 Kan. 227, 239, 699 P.2d 468 (1985). It may be enough for the defendant to arrive at the scene where the crime is to occur. 237 Kan. at 238-40 (<HOLDING>). Each case is dependant on its particular 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant committed an overt act toward the crime of attempted theft when he went to the owners property to prepare the cattle for shipment the next day (B) holding that uncharged sexual acts committed upon the same victim are admissible to show the conduct of the defendant toward the victim and to corroborate the evidence of the offense charged in the indictment (C) holding criminal conspiracy is sustained where the commonwealth establishes the defendant entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person with a shared criminal intent and an overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy a coconspirator may commit the overt act and conspirators are liable for acts of the coconspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy (D) holding that an overt act may be a verbal statement or a physical act (E) holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins
Output (English): holding that an overt act may be a verbal statement or a physical act