Opinion ID: 1844926
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: impossibility

Text: Erban asserted that he cannot be convicted of attempt to manufacture a controlled substance because it was factually and legally impossible for him to manufacture a controlled substance with the materials he used. Section 12.1-06-01(1), N.D.C.C., provides: A person is guilty of criminal attempt if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of a crime, he intentionally engages in conduct which, in fact, constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime. A `substantial step' is any conduct which is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the actor's intent to complete the commission of the crime. Factual or legal impossibility of committing the crime is not a defense, if the crime could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as the actor believed them to be. The trial court instructed the jury that in order to find Erban guilty it had to find that he intentionally engaged in conduct that constituted a substantial step toward the commission of a crime and that Erban intended to manufacture methamphetamine. By returning a verdict of guilty, the jury found that both elements had been established. There was substantial evidence to support that verdict. Erban asserted, however, that the ultimate impossibility of completing the crime was a defense. But, Section 12.1-06-01(1), N.D.C.C., specifically says that impossibility is not a defense if the crime could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as the actor believed them to be. Erban believed that by using Benzedrex inhalers he could extract kitchen crank, or methamphetamine. The reason he failed to do so was that he had a bad recipe; had he used Vicks inhalers he would have produced the controlled substance 1-desoxyephedrine, an isomer of methamphetamine. Erban admitted on cross-examination that he would have used Vicks inhalers if he had known of his mistake. Our criminal attempt statute is derived from the identical provision in the proposed Federal Criminal Code. Thus, the history of the federal code can be persuasive when we interpret our statute. State v. Hogie, 424 N.W.2d 630, 634 (N.D.1988). The history of the federal criminal attempt provision establishes that it was intended to broadly abolish any defense based upon impossibility of completion of the crime: 6. Impossibility Not a Defense.  Although there appear to be no Federal cases dealing clearly with the question of whether impossibility is a defense to a charge of attempt, that question has arisen in other American jurisdictions and should be anticipated in the drafting of a Federal attempt statute. The question is whether a person should be punishable if (a) he receives goods believing them to be stolen when, in fact, they are not, (b) he shoots at a dummy believing that it is a person he intends to kill, or (c) with an intent to take its contents, he opens a safe which proves to be empty. This question is frequently discussed in unhelpful terms of whether the mistake is one of fact or of law. The last sentence of proposed subsection (1) follows the view that such mistakes, whether of fact or of law, should not constitute a defense. This approach is consistent with the overwhelming modern view, and is taken in the New York and Illinois Code revisions, as well as all those still in the proposal stage. The reasons have been succinctly stated as follows: `In all of these cases (1) criminal purpose has been clearly demonstrated, (2) the actor has gone as far as he could in implementing that purpose, and (3) as a result, the actor's dangerousness is plainly manifested.' Concern has been expressed that such an approach permits conviction in what are called `extreme cases,' such as that of the person who sticks a pin into a doll believing that it will kill the person in whose image the doll was fashioned. This concern was accommodated in the Model Penal Code by a provision (section 5.05(2)) permitting the court in any case to lower the grade of the offense or, in extreme cases, to dismiss the prosecution where the conduct `is so inherently unlikely to result or culminate in the commission of a crime that neither such conduct nor the actor presents a public danger warranting' punishment assigned to it. There is disagreement among recent revisions as to whether such a provision is necessary. It is not followed here because, it is believed, such cases will fall into one of the following categories: (a) cases in which lack of mental responsibility will be a good defense; (b) cases in which the inherent unlikelihood that the conduct will result or culminate in commission of the crime may constitute a reasonable doubt as to the actor's intent to commit the crime, justifying exercise of discretion by the prosecutor not to proceed; (c) cases in which, despite the inherent unlikelihood of success of this particular attempt, firmness of criminal purpose is so clear that the actor should be prosecuted because, being educated by his failure, he is likely to try to achieve the same result in another, more dangerous manner. I Working Papers of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws 360-361 (1970) (footnotes omitted). Section 12.1-06-01(1) clearly applies to both factual and legal impossibility. The Working Papers show that the statute is intended to abolish impossibility as a defense whether based upon fact, law, or a combination of both. [1] Applying the reasons stated in the Working Papers, (1) Erban's criminal purpose was clearly demonstrated; (2) he had gone as far as he could in implementing that purpose; and, (3) as a result, his dangerousness was plainly manifested. Under these circumstances, Erban may not escape prosecution because he clumsily used the wrong brand of inhaler. We conclude that the factual impossibility of extracting a controlled substance in these circumstances is not a defense to the criminal charge of attempted manufacture of a controlled substance.