Also known as: substantive crimes · substantive offense · substantive offences
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A completed criminal offense that forms the object of inchoate liability such as attempt or conspiracy. The offense supplies the basis for determining whether preparatory conduct has crossed into attempt or whether merger absorbs a conspiracy charge.
Sofia Stern and Seth Shapiro agreed to submit false invoices to Summit Bank. Once Seth alone executed the scheme and the bank paid the claims, Sofia faced charges only for the completed fraud. The agreement merged into the substantive offense, barring a separate conspiracy conviction.
Samantha Stone drove to Sentinel Security's headquarters with stolen credentials and a laptop. She circled the lot searching for an entry point but never left her car or connected to the network. Officers arrested her before she approached any building, so her conduct never reached the substantive theft offense under the proximity test.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Spencer Silver prepared and submitted a forged medical claim to Southland Foods' insurer using what he believed was an active policy number. The policy had been canceled months earlier, an unknown fact that blocked any payout. Because the believed facts would have completed insurance fraud, factual impossibility supplied no defense to attempt.
Sydney Santos prepared a false affidavit she intended to use in litigation. Even if filed exactly as planned, the statement lacked the materiality element required for perjury. Because the completed conduct would not have constituted the substantive offense, legal impossibility defeated the attempt charge.
Sylvia Santos and Samantha Stone conspired to embezzle funds from Sapphire Holdings. Each later performed distinct withdrawals that constituted completed thefts. The completed substantive offenses absorbed the conspiracy under the merger rule, precluding a separate conspiracy conviction on the same agreement.
Seth Shapiro was convicted of the completed bank fraud after a jury found the elements of the substantive offense. The underlying agreement could not support an additional conspiracy conviction once the substantive crime was finished. The substantive crime conviction stood alone under the merger doctrine.
Merger occurs once the conspirators complete the substantive offense that was the object of their agreement. The participants may be convicted of the completed crime, but the law does not permit a separate conviction for the conspiracy based on the same agreement and completed offense.
Supporting sources
No. A defendant may not invoke factual impossibility as a defense when an unknown physical or factual condition prevented completion of the substantive offense. Liability attaches if the conduct would have constituted the completed crime had the facts been as the defendant believed them to be.
Supporting sources
Legal impossibility is a complete defense because the intended conduct would not constitute a crime even if carried out exactly as planned. Factual impossibility supplies no defense because the only barrier is an unknown factual condition that would not have altered the criminal character of the acts.
Supporting sources
The defendant's acts must come so near to accomplishment that the substantive crime would have been committed but for an interruption. Traveling to the general area or other preparatory steps that leave substantial acts undone fall short of attempt liability.
Supporting sources
…of guilt, the court determined, and did not appear " tailored to permit the . . . finding to be a tail which wags the dog of the substantive offense.' " 304 N. J. Super., at 154, 698 A. 2d, at 1269 (quoting McMillan , 477 U. S., at 88). Characterizing the required finding as one of "motive," the court described it as a traditional…