Court Opinion

ID: 9515193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:54:29.080542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:26.062486
License: Public Domain

ZINTER, Justice
(dissenting).
[¶ 58.] I join the Court’s legal analysis concerning the distinction between solicitations and attempts to commit murder.6 Therefore, I agree that Disanto’s solicitation of McCabe, in and of itself, was legally insufficient7 to constitute an attempt to commit murder under SDCL 22-4-1. However, I respectfully disagree with the Court’s analysis of the facts, which leads it to find as a matter of law that Disanto “committed [no] act toward the commission of the offense[].” Supra ¶1. In my judgment, the Court’s view of the facts is not supported by the record. On the contrary, even setting aside Disanto's solicitation, he still engaged in sufficient other “acts” toward the commission of the murder such that reasonable jurors could have found that he proceeded “so far that they would result in the accomplishment of the crime unless frustrated by extraneous circumstances.” State v. Martinez, 88 S.D. 369, 372, 220 N.W.2d 530, 531 (1974). The intended victims were clearly in more danger then than they were when Disanto first expressed his desire to kill them.
[¶ 59.] Specifically, Disanto physically provided McCabe with a photograph of the victim, he pointed out her vehicle, and he took McCabe to the victim’s home and pointed her out as she was leaving. None of these acts were acts of solicitation. Rather, they were physical “act[s going] toward the commission” of the murder. SDCL 22-4-1.
[¶ 60.] Although it is acknowledged that the cases discussed by the Court have found that one or more of the foregoing acts can be part of a solicitation, Disanto’s case has one significant distinguishing feature. After his solicitation was completed, after the details were arranged, and after Disanto completed the physical acts de*217scribed above, he then went even further and executed a command to implement the killing. In fact, this Court itself describes this act as the “final command”8 to execute the murder. Disanto issued the order: “It’s a go.”9 This act is not present in the solicitation cases that invalidate attempted murder convictions because they proceeded no further than preparation.10
[¶ 61.] Therefore, when Disanto’s final command to execute the plan is combined with his history and other acts, this is the type of case that proceeded further than the mere solicitations and plans found insufficient in the case law. This combination of physical acts would have resulted in accomplishment of the crime absent the intervention of the law enforcement officer. Clearly, the victim was in substantially greater danger after the final command than when Disanto first expressed his desire to kill her. Consequently, there was sufficient evidence to support an attempt conviction.11
[¶ 62.] It bears repeating that none of the various “tests” used by courts in this area of the law can possibly distinguish all preparations from attempts. Therefore, a defendant’s entire course of conduct should be evaluated in light of his intent and his prior history in order to determine whether there was substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have sustained a finding of an attempt. People v. Memro, 38 Cal.3d 658, 214 Cal.Rptr. 832, 860, 700 P.2d 446, 474 (1985). In making that determination, it is universally recognized that the acts of solicitation and attempt are a continuum between planning and perpetration of the offense. Whether acts are so preparatory as to not *218constitute an attempt or are sufficiently close to consummation of the crime as to constitute an attempt, “is a question of degree and depends upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case.” Braham, v. State, 571 P.2d 631, 637 (Alaska 1977).
[¶ 63.] However, it is generally the jury’s function to determine whether those acts have proceeded beyond mere planning. As this Court itself has noted, where design is shown, “courts should not destroy the practical and common sense administration of the law with subtleties as to what constitutes [the] preparation” to commit a crime as distinguished from acts done towards the commission of a crime. State v. Pepka, 72 S.D. 503, 508, 37 N.W.2d 189, 191 (1949). Therefore, it should be a rare case to be decided as a matter of law. Ordinarily this issue would be left to the jury. State v. Sunzar, 331 N.J.Super 248, 751 A.2d 627, 630 (Ct.Law Div. 1999). We leave this question to the jury because “[t]he line between preparation and attempt is drawn at that point where the accused’s acts no longer strike the jury as being equivocal but unequivocally demonstrate that a crime is about to be committed.” State v. Miskimins, 435 NW2d 217, 223 (SD 1989) (emphasis added) (citing State v. Martinez, 88 S.D. 369, 372, 220 N.W.2d 530, 531 (1974)).
[¶ 64.] I would follow that admonition and affirm the judgment of this jury. Disanto’s design, solicitation, physical acts toward commission of the crime and his final command to execute the murder, when considered together, unequivocally demonstrated that a crime was about to be committed. This was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have reasonably found that an attempt had been committed.12

. I also join the Court's analysis of Disanto’s defense of abandonment.

. Technically, this specific argument was not presented to the trial court or raised in the appellate briefs. Thus, the trial court did not have an opportunity to address it, and we would not normally rule upon it. However, the argument is a sub-issue of the preserved issue challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Because we must address it to rule on the sufficiency of the evidence, it is a proper subject for this appeal.

. See supra, ¶ 1.

. See supra, ¶ 8.

. This execution order was a significant act toward the commission of the murder after the preparations were made. This act distinguishes the Court's cases: See, People v. Adami, 36 Cal.App.3d 452, 111 Cal.Rptr. 544 (1973) (mere acts of preparation did not constitute an overt act: there was only a verbal agreement between defendant and the hired killer, the selection of such person to do the killing, and a payment of a portion of the consideration); State v. Otto, 102 Idaho 250, 629 P2d 646, 651 (1981) (agreement reached and payment made, but no other overt act identified); State v. Davis, 319 Mo. 1222, 6 S.W.2d 609, 612 (1928) (evidence going no further than developing a verbal arrangement with the agent, the delivery of a certain drawing and two photographs of victim to the agent, and the payment of a portion of the agreed consideration were mere acts of preparation); State v. Molasky, 765 SW2d 597, 602 (Mo banc 1989) (only prisoner talk about the killings, but no further act that indicated a seriousness of purpose i.e. payment of money, providing a picture or any other corroborative action); Gervin v. State, 212 Tenn. 653, 371 S.W.2d 449, 450 ( 1963) (indictment insufficient because it merely alleged that defendant hired, persuaded, and procured another to attempt to murder another); Hobbs v. State, 548 SW2d 884, 886 (TexCrimApp 1977) (indictment was insufficient because it did nothing more than merely plead a promise to pay a named individual to kill another); Hicks v. Commonwealth, 86 Va. 223, 9 S.E. 1024 (1889) (indictment insufficient because it did not charge that agent agreed to administer the poison, or that she did any act towards the commission of the crime, and the mere delivery of poison by one person to another, who refuses to administer it or do any act in furtherance of the homicidal design of the person delivering it, does not constitute an attempt to administer poison).

.Contrary to the Court’s suggestion at n3, supra, the foregoing analysis is not premised upon concepts of conspiracy jurisprudence. However, having said that, it is interesting to note that the purpose of distinguishing between preparations and attempts is the same as the purpose of requiring an overt act in a conspiracy case. "The purpose of the overt act is to afford a locus poenitentiae, when either or all the conspirators may abandon the unlawful purpose.” U.S. v. Olmstead, 5 F.2d 712, 714 (D.C.Wash.1925) (citing U.S. v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 2 S.Ct. 531, 27 L.Ed. 698).

. Disanto's other issues have no merit.