A man intending to kill his friend armed himself with a pistol and crouched behind some bushes overlooking a path on which his friend frequently jogged. On this morning, however, the man saw the friend jogging on another path about a half mile away. The man was not aware of the range of the pistol so he fired five shots at the friend. None of the five shots came anywhere close to the friend because he was well out of range.
The man is:
A. Guilty of attempted murder, if he was not aware of the limited range of his pistol.
B. Guilty of attempted murder, if a reasonable person would not have been aware of the limited range of his pistol.
C. Not guilty of attempted murder, or any lesser included offense, because, under the circumstances, it was impossible for him to have killed his friend.
D. Not guilty of attempted murder, but guilty of assault.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
A – I hate these negatively worded questions…..anyway…. A because I believe if he were aware of the limited range of the pistol it would negate the intent element
A is correct:
Answer A is correct. The man is guilty of attempted murder. To be guilty of attempted murder, the man must first have intended to kill his friend and take steps going beyond mere preparation to carry out that intent. Both of these elements are satisfied by the fact pattern. The only fact which could negate that intent is his knowledge that the gun did not have the range to cause bullets to hit his friend. He would be guilty of attempted murder under those circumstances. The factual impossibility of committing the substantive crime is not a defense to attempt.
Answer B is incorrect. The standard of knowledge concerning the range of the pistol, which is required to negate the crime of attempted murder in these circumstances, is subjective knowledge of the defendant, not the knowledge of a reasonable person.
Answer C is incorrect. The impossibility presented in this case is a factual impossibility because of the range of the gun. That will not be a defense to the crime unless the defendant knew of the impossibility so that he could not have had the intent to kill when he fired the five shots.
Answer D is incorrect. Because the man possessed the intent to kill, not merely to harm, the crime is attempted murder, not assault.
Answer B
The best answer is A, attempted murder. There is no reasonable person standard regarding knowledge of limitation of the chosen weapon that excuses the offense.
B
Answer A
Attempt
a) Specific intent and
b) Substantial step more than mere preparation
c) In the direction of the commission of the crime
d) Impossibility is not a good defense in this case.
e) application of defense – any mistake.
I was close to picking answer B. but reasonable mistakes negate intent in malice/general intent crimes.
i agree with most of the gang. A. He had the specific intent. It is not a reasonable person’s standard as in B. Rather, it is his specific intent to kill which is more easily seen that he did not know that the gun had a very limited range. As such, he did have the specific intent to kill, and attempted murder is satisfied.
The best answer is A. This is an example of attempt, which is a specific intent crime. The man had formed the mens rea when he hid behind the bushes with a gun in order to kill his friend on the way home from work. If the friend had taken his usual path home, he would have been killed by the bullet. Factual impossibility is not a defense to a specific intent crime.
B. The limitation of the pistol is not an element of attempted murder. If a person devises a bomb, but it doesn’t work, still attempted murder is the act of perpetration, with the specific intent to commit a crime. In firing the gun, the crime was perpetrated.
A is the correct answer. He had the specific intent to kill and commited an act beyond mere preparation.
A. He had the intent for malice aforethought (intent to kill) and by shooting the five shots he had (specific intent to commit the murder crime) and this qualified as an act in furtherance beyond mere preparation.
A is the correct answer. The man demonstrated intent to kill by firing a deadly weapon at the intended victim and was not aware of the limitations of the range of the pistol.
A is correct. Attempt is a specific intent crime. Defendant had the requisite intent to kill and committed an act beyond mere preparation (i.e. he fired five shots at the intended victim). Factual impossibility is no defense.
A – intent and and overt action towards completion
A – he intended to commit the crime of murder and took all necessary steps to further his intent.