In this scenario, there are two types of attempt that took place consecutively: completed and incomplete attempt.
First, it was completed when he pointed the gun at Jack and fired, mistakenly killing Pratt instead of Bert. Bert took all the required steps necessary to commit the criminal offense. He possessed all the three elements of criminal attempt, which are: an intent or purpose to commit a crime, an act or acts toward the commission of the crime and a failure to commit the crime. And attempt punishes an unsuccessful effort to commit a crime and specific intent or purpose to accomplish a criminal offense and an act to carry out the purpose are the requirements to convict an individual for inchoate crimes such as attempt which the suspect is guilty of. Therefore, however, the suspect in this case is liable for attempted murder and punishable such an offense. In the case of PEOPLE v. KIMBALL, 109 Mich. App. 273 (1981), 311 N.W.2d 343, a defendant was convicted and sentenced ...view middle of the document...
He has already posed a threat to the targeted individual and the society in genaral even when the crime was not actualized. For this reason, the court was not correct in dismissing the case.
Again, the prosecutor may argue that the objective aspect of the crime was missed, in other words, the defendant missed his target and therefore, should not be held liable for murder. From the Model Penal Code or substantial step toward the commission of a crime perspective, the court was not correct in dismissing the charge because, the suspect’s act’s were sufficient to clearly indicate that he poossessed an intent to commit the crime. In addition, his intent and act are under common law. So, while the intent of the suspect was to shoot Bert but inadvertently shot Pratt, the intent was then transferred which still made him liable for the attempted murder. For example, in the case of People v. Conley, Conley intended to hit Mary instead struck and inflicted severe injuries on another person. The common law doctrine of transferred intent states that the defendant’s guilt is exactly what it would have been had the perpetrator intnet not have fallen on a bystander. However, Conley was convicted with aggravated battery. Therefore, the court was wrong in dismiising the case. The second attempt from this case was an impossible attempt. The perpetrated had taken all the necessary preparations towards the commission of the crime but was unable. He abandoned his act because the gun jammed. His abandonment was not voluntary rather involuntary. It was due to the gun’s mechanical error which was external and undecided of him. His act is punishable because he did not abandone the crime purposefully rather as a result of external circumstances not caused by him. I think that the suspect’s abandonment of the crime was too late as the trial court ruled in the case of People v Stephens,84 Mich.App. 250, 255; 269 N.W.2d 552 (1978).
Lippman, M. (2009). Contemporary Criminal Law: Concepts, Cases, and Controversies (2nd ed). Chicago: Sage publications