Opinion ID: 876909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: overt act requirement

Text: Defendant argues that mere conversation is not a direct unequivocal act directed toward the commission of the offense sufficient to sustain a conviction for attempted sale of dangerous drugs. Furthermore, he argues that an overt act must go far enough toward the accomplishment of the offense to amount to commencement of its consummation. Since defendant never displayed any marijuana to any of the three students he offered to sell a bag to, he argues that at no time did he have the apparent ability to complete a sale. The State contends that defendant's actions were more than mere acts of preparation, rather they were acts of perpetration. The only thing standing between defendant and a completed sale was his inability to find a willing buyer. Section 94-4-103, R.C.M. 1947, now section 45-4-103 MCA, provides: A person commits the offense of attempt when, with the purpose to commit a specific offense, he does any act towards the commission of such offense. This Court has stated that an overt act must reach far enough towards the accomplishment of the desired result to amount to the commencement of the consummation. In addition, the Court stated that there must be at least some appreciable fragment of the crime committed, and it must be in such progress that it will be consummated unless interrupted by circumstances independent of the will of the attempter. State v. Rains (1917), 53 Mont. 424, 164 P. 540. In this case it is clear that defendant intended to make a sale of drugs. He made offers to three students and had the drugs in his possession at the time of the offers. Further, testimony indicated that defendant was traveling from Chinook to Sidney when the side trip to Havre was taken. The extraordinary trip, approaching students and making verbal offers to sell drugs are sufficient acts to constitute the crime of attempt consistent with the rationale of State v. Rains, supra. The case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. HASWELL, C.J., DALY and SHEA, JJ., and W.W. LESSLEY, District Judge [] , concur.