Opinion ID: 1943965
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Attempted Crime Substantial Step

Text: Gronenthal admits that the State presented substantial evidence of his intent to commit murder. Gronenthal asserts, however, that the State's proof failed to establish sufficient evidence that he acted on that intent, so as to constitute a substantial step toward attempting to murder Smith, as is required by 11 Del.C. § 531(2). The law concerning an attempt to commit any crime is codified in 11 Del.C. § 531 and 11 Del.C. § 532. Section 531 provides, in pertinent part: A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if the person ... (2) [i]ntentionally does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as the person believes them to be, is a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime by the person. Section 532 defines the term substantial step as follows: A substantial step under § 531 of this title is an act or omission which leaves no reasonable doubt as to the defendant's intention to commit the crime which the defendant is charged with attempting. The Delaware Criminal Code is based upon the provisions of the Model Penal Code. [6] The counterpart to Section 531 of the Delaware Criminal Code is Model Penal Code Section 5.01(1). The counterpart to Section 532 of the Delaware Criminal Code is Model Penal Code Section 5.01(2). In Section 531(2), Delaware adopted the Model Penal Code's definition of attempt, including the concept that a substantial step must have occurred. [7] In enacting Section 532, however, Delaware did not include the Model Penal Code's formulation for determining what constitutes a substantial step. The commentary to the Delaware Criminal Code states: Section 532 is an innovation, without precedent in other statutes, though having its origin in Turner's views about the nature of attempt. The problem is to identify the point at which the police are to be authorized to arrest a person who is preparing to commit a crime. This is best accomplished by identifying the point at which there remains no reasonable doubt as to his intention to commit the crime. In other words, the matter is made a jury issue, without any attempt to identify the steps which might be sufficient. It seems clear that much will depend on the surrounding circumstances and on the nature of the crime which is contemplated. It may be thought that the definition of substantial step is circular. In fact, when taken in context ... it will be seen that the test fits in with the central concern of the section. An act must be done, accompanied by a specified intent. That intent is to be proved by evidence that the actor is responsible for a certain act or omission which is consistent only with an intent on his part that a certain crime be committed. Act and intent are thus intimately related, and rightly so. The Model Penal Code Provision contains a list of steps which may be sufficient under some circumstances, and they are listed below. None is in itself sufficient, however, the controlling question being in each case whether all reasonable doubt about the defendant's purpose is excluded. [8] Thus, the Delaware commentators decided that the determination of whether a defendant had taken a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime [9] should be left entirely to the discretion of the jury, without any attempt to identify the steps which might be sufficient. [10]