Also known as:substantial steps · substantial-step test
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Conduct that is strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose. The conduct must advance a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Reconnoitering Target Location
Serena Soto obtained a stolen laptop loaded with remote access tools and login credentials. She drove to Apex Storage's campus and circled the parking lot searching for an unsecured entrance to connect to the network. Officers arrested her before she left the car. Her actions of gathering specialized equipment and scouting the site constituted a substantial step strongly corroborative of intent to steal data.
Parking Near Target Structure
Samuel Soto purchased gasoline and rags, drove to the alley behind the vacant duplex, and parked directly behind the building. Officers stopped him before he exited the car or approached the structure. Under the proximity test his conduct remained too remote from actually igniting the fire to qualify as an attempt.
Santiago Sanchez mixed a restricted pesticide into grain and poured it into a portable water tank. He adjusted an automated feeder timer to release the mixture after his departure and carried the bucket toward the cattle pen. A supervisor stopped him just outside the pen. The combination of mixing, timing, and carrying the agent met the substantial-step requirement.
United States v. Mandujano499 F.2d 370, 376 (5th Cir. 1974)
Roy Mandujano was convicted in the district court of attempted distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment.
On March 29, 1973, San Antonio police officer Alfonso H. Cavalier, assigned to the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement and working undercover, along with a government informer, went to the Tally-Ho Lounge on Guadalupe Street in San Antonio. The informant introduced Cavalier to Roy Mandujano. Mandujano asked if they were looking for 'stuff' and offered to sell good brown Mexican heroin for $650.00 an ounce, but stated that Cavalier would have to wait until later in the afternoon for deliveries.
When Cavalier indicated he could not wait, Mandujano made four telephone calls in an effort to locate another source. Mandujano then proposed going to a contact who kept narcotics at home but required the money upfront. Mandujano received $650.00 from Cavalier at about 3:30 P.M., left the bar, and returned approximately one hour later without the heroin, returning the money.
Agent Gerald Courtney of the Drug Enforcement Administration observed Mandujano leave the bar around 3:15 or 3:30 P.M. and return at about 4:30 P.M.
Cavalier called at 6:00 P.M. and 6:30 P.M. but was told Mandujano was not available. Cavalier did not attempt further contact because he believed it would be unsafe based on information he had received.
Mandujano was indicted on a count charging that on or about March 29, 1973, he knowingly and intentionally attempted to distribute one ounce of heroin. At trial, the only government witnesses were Agents Cavalier and Courtney. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the district court imposed a fifteen-year sentence. Mandujano appealed the judgment of conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Sierra Santos purchased a gun, practiced at a range, and lured her intended victim to a remote location under a false pretext. She positioned herself with the loaded weapon before officers intervened. The sequence of acquiring the weapon, training, and positioning the victim satisfied the substantial-step test.
State v. Smith621 A.2d 493 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1993)
Gregory Smith was committed to the Camden County jail on April 14, 1989, for trial on robbery charges. In September 1988 he had tested positive for HIV and knew of his infection. Jailers placed him in a special blood alert area. Before June 11, 1989, Smith repeatedly threatened corrections officers that he would bite or spit on them to kill them or give them AIDS. He had discussed his HIV status with guards and a local reporter while seeking transfer to a state prison for better medical care.
On May 5, 1989, Smith kicked his cell door. After officers restrained him, he threatened to bite and spit while showing his teeth. On May 17 he again resisted officers. He threatened to take one of us the fuck out. He promised to have an officer killed by his brothers. He later spat at another officer while trying to bite him. On June 11 officers escorted Smith to Cooper Hospital after he claimed a fall. At the hospital he became disruptive. He grabbed a metal cylinder. During the struggle he bit Officer Waddington's hand, causing puncture wounds visible in photographs taken days later. Throughout the incident Smith repeatedly threatened to bite and give the officers AIDS so they would die.
Waddington was treated by Dr. Zimmerman who prescribed an oral antibiotic and administered hepatitis B immunoglobulin. Since the incident, Waddington has undergone continued testing for HIV. As of the time of trial in April 1990, the tests had been negative. Additional incidents occurred on June 12 and October 17, 1989, in which Smith again threatened officers with his HIV status while resisting restraint. At the April 1990 trial the State presented Dr. Porwancher, who testified that transmission of HIV by bite was possible on rare occasions based on case reports in Lancet and a Soviet study. Defendant's expert Dr. Condoluci testified that the chance was extremely remote and cited studies showing no transmissions in documented bite cases.
Smith testified that he knew HIV could be transmitted only sexually, by transfusion, or by needles. He believed transmission by bite was impossible. Mental health worker Eugene Niblack confirmed he had told Smith biting was extremely difficult if not impossible. Smith denied biting or threatening the officers and claimed the officers lied. The jury convicted Smith on April 11, 1990, of attempted murder of Waddington, aggravated assault on both officers, and terroristic threats. Judge Mariano imposed an aggregate twenty-five-year term with twelve-and-one-half years of parole ineligibility. Smith appealed to the Superior Court, Appellate Division.
Sabrina Shah arranged an online meeting with a person she believed to be a twelve-year-old boy and traveled to the agreed location carrying items for the planned encounter. Police arrested her upon arrival before any physical contact occurred. Traveling to the site with the necessary items after online solicitation constituted a substantial step.
People v. Scott14 Cal.4th 544, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 178, 927 P.2d 288 (1996)
The defendant was prosecuted in the circuit court of Lake County for offenses arising from his Internet communications with an undercover Lake County sheriff's detective.
On July 13, 1998, Detective Richard White was conducting an investigation on the Internet service provider America Online using the screen name XradboyX.
The profile of XradboyX indicated that the user was named Ricky and was born on December 12, 1986.
Detective White was in a chat room when he received an instant message from the defendant, who was using the screen name FarWestBoy.
The defendant asked Ricky how old he was.
An Internet instant message conversation then ensued during which Detective White represented that he was 12 years old and the defendant indicated that he was 34.
The conversation included references to sexual behaviors.
Detective White and the defendant agreed to meet later that day at a Denny's restaurant, but the defendant did not appear.
The following day the defendant sent two e-mails apologizing for not attending the meeting and expressed his desire to continue the exchange of messages.
When Detective White logged on to America Online, he received an instant message from the defendant.
They engaged in a sexually suggestive computer dialogue for about one hour.
During that conversation Detective White requested that the defendant send pictures via e-mail of men engaged in sexual conduct.
The defendant complied and forwarded images of two young males engaged in acts of sexual penetration.
Detective White and the defendant again agreed to meet at the Denny's restaurant.
At the agreed-upon time on July 15, 1998, Lake County detectives arrived at the location.
After the defendant arrived he approached Detective Manis, who had been dressed to attempt to match the description of a 12-year-old boy.
The defendant asked Detective Manis if he was Ricky.
After Detective Manis responded in the affirmative, the defendant stated that Manis did not look twelve years old.
Police officers then arrested the defendant.
Following his arrest the defendant was taken to the sheriff's department where he gave oral and written statements to investigators.
During the interview the defendant identified himself as FarWestBoy and admitted his understanding that Ricky was 12 years old.
He confirmed that he had driven to the Denny's restaurant to meet Ricky and that he would have had sex if Ricky had wanted to.
The defendant presented no evidence at the bench trial and moved for a directed verdict.
The trial court found the defendant guilty of attempted predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, attempted criminal sexual abuse, and two counts of attempted indecent solicitation of a child.
The trial court denied the defendant's posttrial motions.
On February 23, 1999, the trial court sentenced the defendant to 12 years' imprisonment for attempted predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and vacated the judgment on the charge of attempted aggravated criminal sexual abuse.
The trial court also sentenced the defendant to concurrent terms of 365 days' imprisonment on each of the two charges of attempted indecent solicitation of a child.
The defendant appealed from that order.
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, testimony addressed the circumstances under which the defendant signed a Miranda waiver form after initial hesitation and questioning by detectives.
The trial court took judicial notice of the defendant's 1997 Cook County conviction for possession of child pornography that was later vacated in 2000 after the underlying statute was held unconstitutional.
Sasha Stone created fictitious documents and digital files depicting a minor and arranged equipment to produce pornography. Officers seized the materials before any recording took place. The preparation and assembly of the materials and equipment amounted to a substantial step toward the completed offense.
United States v. Lee455 U.S. 252 (1982)
In 2006 postal inspector Jude Densley created an undercover profile on the social networking site hi5 under the name Candi Kane. According to her profile Candi was an open-minded mother of two beautiful girls ages seven and twelve. The profile also identified Candi as a member of online social groups called Young Girls and Older Men Loving Each Other, Dady's Favourite, and Family Love is Best. At trial Densley explained that the phrase family love is a euphemism for incest.
In September 2007 Van Buren Lee using the screen name Doc initiated contact with the profile by sending a message stating he was the man to handle all her needs. Lee closed his message by telling Candi to take care of her and the girls. From October 2007 through March 2008 Lee and Densley still posing as Candi exchanged dozens of online messages and one recorded telephone call on December 27 2007. Lee repeatedly asked about the daughters' ages. Lee offered to send a photograph of his penis. Lee requested specific sexually explicit photographs of the girls in poses with legs open and cheeks held apart. Lee discussed travel plans for an October 2008 visit to California. Lee asked whether the older girl was menstruating or on birth control. Lee stated he was not a condom user. Lee also sent the penis photograph. Lee watched Candi view a live video of him masturbating. Lee promised to send gifts such as coloring books dolls and necklaces to the girls.
On March 7 2008 after Candi told Lee she had mailed the requested photographs federal agents delivered a package containing images of minors in sexually explicit poses to Lee's home in Rockmart Georgia. Lee retrieved the package from his porch while still chatting online with Candi and was arrested at that moment. Lee never contacted Candi again after the arrest. In March 2008 a federal grand jury in the Northern District of Georgia returned a three-count indictment charging Lee with attempted production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e). The indictment also charged knowing receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A). The indictment further charged attempted enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). A jury convicted Lee on all three counts after trial. The district court sentenced Lee in December 2008 to concurrent terms of 300 months on each count.
What must the prosecution prove to establish that conduct qualifies as a substantial step?
The prosecution must show that the defendant's conduct was strongly corroborative of criminal purpose and advanced a course of conduct planned to culminate in the crime. Conduct that is merely preparatory or equivocal does not suffice.
Supporting sources
How does the substantial-step test differ from the common-law proximity test?
The substantial-step test focuses on whether the actor's conduct strongly corroborates criminal purpose rather than on how close the conduct came to completing the offense. The proximity test requires the conduct to come dangerously close to success with only minor steps remaining.
Supporting sources
Does lying in wait or searching for the victim satisfy the substantial-step requirement?
Yes. The Model Penal Code expressly lists lying in wait, searching for, or following the contemplated victim as conduct that, if strongly corroborative of purpose, shall not be held insufficient as a matter of law.
Supporting sources
Can a defendant be convicted of attempt when the intended crime proves impossible to complete?
Yes. Under the substantial-step test, factual impossibility is not a defense when the actor's conduct would constitute the crime if the circumstances were as the actor believed them to be.
What role does the substantial-step test play in conspiracy liability in some jurisdictions?
A few states require that at least one conspirator take a substantial step in furtherance of the agreement, applying the same meaning used in attempt—an act that strongly corroborates the actor's criminal purpose.
455 U.S. 252 (1982)
…Lee "(1) had the specific intent or mens rea to commit the underlying charged crimes, and (2) took actions that constituted a substantial step toward the commission of [each] crime." Yost , 479 F.3d at 819 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have explained that a defendant takes a substantial step…