Attempt 1

State v. Steward
Notes
The only evidence at trial was the testimony of the complainant, Scott
Kodanko. The complainant testified that he was waiting for a bus at about 4:30 on
Saturday, after leaving work. He was alone in a three-sided Plexiglas bus shelter open
to the street in downtown Milwaukee. Two men, Mr. Moore and the D, entered the
bus shelter while a third man, Mr. Levy, remained outside.
Moore and the D stood one to two feet from the complainant. The C was in a
corner of the shelter, his exit to the street blocked by the two men. Moore asked the C
if he wanted to buy some cigs. The C responded that he did not. Moore then said,
"Give us some change." When the C refused, the D said, "Give us some change,
man." The D repeated this demand in an increasingly loud voice 3 to 4 times. The C
still refused this demand in an increasingly loud voices three to four times. The C still
refused to give the two men change. The D then reached into his coat with his right
hand at about waist level, whereupon Moore stated something to the effect of "put that
gun away." At that point Levy, who had been waiting outside the bus shelter, entered
and said to the D and Moore, "Come on, let's go." Levy showed the C some money,
stating, "I don't want your money, I got lots of money."
The tree men left the bus shelter together and entered a restaurant across the
street, A few minutes later Moore returned and made "small talk" with the C. The tree
men were arrested a short while after. It appears from the record that the C did not
report the incident to the police. The record does not reveal who called the police.
The C testified that he felt threatened throughout the encounter, which lasted
less than three minutes. None of the men ever touched him or raised a hand to him,
and at no time did he attempt to leave the shelter.
Issue
#1. Whether the rational trier of fact could find the D guilty of attempted robbery
beyond a reasonable doubt.
#2. Whether the evidence is sufficient for the trier of fact to conclude that the D had
the requisite intent.
Reasoning
The court of appeals concluded that the trier of fact could not be convinced
beyond a reasonable doubt that the D would have committed robbery except for the
intervention of another person or extraneous factor pursuant to sec. 939.32(3).
Sec. 939.32(3), the attempt statute, provides as follows:
An attempt to commit a crime requires that the actor have an intent to perform
acts and attain a result which, if accomplished, would constitute such crime and that
he does acts toward the commission of the crime which demonstrate unequivocally,
under all circumstances, that he formed that intent and would commit the crime
except for the intervention of another person or some other extraneous factor.
Holding
The court of appeals reversed the conviction of D Walter Lee Stewart for
attempted robbery.
Evans v. State
Notes
The evidence shows Evans, Tinch, and Jermaine Corbitt discussed stealing
stereo equipment from automobiles; they were in possession of screwdrivers pliers,
and various car keys; Tinch drove the trio in his car to a mall parking lot to find a bar
to break into; they slowly drove through the parking lots of the mall and two other
nearby shopping centers for approximately 45 minutes, but left without entering an

Attempt 2
automobile because they were being followed by a pickup truck, which later learned
was occupied by undercover police officers.
Issue
#1. Whether there was sufficient evidence that Evans and Tinch took a substantial step
toward entering an automobile.
Reasoning
Evans' and Tinch's discussion regarding the theft of a car stereo and their
possession of tools to aid in the commission of such a theft, without more, would not
have amounted to an attempt to enter an automobile, but merely would have been
preparatory acts not proximately leading to the consummation of the crime of entering
an automobile. Evans and Tinch, however, went beyond these remote acts of
preparation when they drove to the shopping center parking lots in search of a specific
car to enter. Taken as a whole, the acts of Evans and Tinch were done in pursuit of
their intent to enter an automobile for the purpose of stealing stereo equipment and
those acts directly tended to the commission of that crime.
Holding
The trial court therefore did not err in finding Evans and Tinch guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of criminal attempt to enter an automobile. Judgments affirmed.
Case Problem #37 (447)
At common law two elements are required for conduct to be deemed a
criminal attempt: (1) intent to commit the crime alleged attempted; (2) some acts in
furtherance of that intent. The defense did have to intent to kill Jayden, but there were
no acts in furtherance of that intent. The D drank a couple of beers and fell asleep in
his car. He was going to sleep the night away, before the police found him. Any one
can express or say a violent thought, but how many of those people actually commit
the crime? The answer is a few, and the D wasn't one of them. There is insufficient
evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the D is guilty.
Baldwin v. Commonwealth
Notes
The evidence adduced at trial showed that on June 16, 2004, Mark D. Bowen,
a Chesterfield County police officer, observed Baldwin traveling approximately 25
miles per hour over the posted speed limit in a residential area. Bowen followed
Baldwin in his police cruiser and both vehicles turned onto Route 10 before Bowen
activated his emergency equipment. Baldwin brought his car to a stop on a paved
right-hand turn lane of the road with a clear path in the turn lane in front of his
vehicle. Bowen parked "about a vehicle and a half length" behind Baldwin, and the
approached Baldwin's vehicle on foot. Bowen stopped by the "driver's side rear
passenger window" and "the driver's door" of Baldwin's vehicle, keeping his "hand
down on the vehicle in case [Baldwin] tried to pop the vehicle or open the door."
Bowen observed Baldwin speaking on a cell, so he tapped on Baldwin's
window. Rather than acknowledging Bowen, Baldwin "put both hands on the steering
wheel and tuned his vehicle towards [Bowen], and then proceeded over two lanes of
traffic and sped off." In order to prevent the back wheels of Baldwin's vehicle from
running over his feet as he accelerated, Bowen perceived he "had to push off the back
of the car." Joined by several; other police officers, Bowen then pursued Baldwin and
was able to stop and arrest him approximately seven miles from the location of the
initial stop.
Issues
#1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the necessary intent to kill to support
a conviction for attempted murder.

Attempt 3
Reasoning
As Baldwin contends, the facts of this case are more analogous to Haywood,
which only supported the conclusion that the D was attempting to escape. Similarly,
the facts before us in this case are insufficient as a matter of law to prove intent to kill.
Thus, the Commonwealth failed to prove a necessary element of the crime of
attempted murder.
Holding
For the reasons set forth above, we will reserve the judgment of the Court of
Appeals and dismiss the indictment.