ASSESSMENT #4: Inchoate Offenses and Parties to Crime

Answer the following:

1. What is an inchoate offense? List the three inchoate offenses and their definitions under
NY law.
Inchoate Offenses are incomplete offenses that have begun but are not fully completed. The three
inchoate offenses under NY law include solicitation, attempt, and conspiracy. Solicitation is
asking someone to commit the crime with the specific intent or purpose that the crime be
committed. Attempt is conduct that gets dangerously close to the commission of the crime. A
conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime and overact to further
the crime.
2. See Table 4-1 on page 99 (Attempt: Summary of Tests) a) Define the dangerous
proximity, substantial step, and physical proximity test b) What is the test for an attempt
under New York law?
In the dangerous proximity, the defendant must act in dangerous proximity to the crime to be
culpable. Acts remotely connected to the crime are not adequate. In the substantial step, the
defendant is culpable if he or she took substantial steps toward the commission of the crime. In
the physical proximity, the defendant is culpable if the completion of the crime is within grasp,
although the defendant’s act need not be the penultimate act. The test for an attempt under New
York law typically involves proving that the individual engaged in conduct that came
dangerously close to committing the crime, demonstrating a specific intent to commit the
offense. It often requires showing a substantial step towards the completion of the crime,
combined with an evident criminal purpose.

3. Read the Capstone Case: Tennessee v. Reeves on page 95 and answer the following
questions:
a) Do you agree that the girls had taken a substantial step toward the commission of a
targeted offense? What test does the court establish for Tennessee to determine if a
substantial step has been taken?
Yes, I agree that the girls had taken a substantial step toward the commission of a targeted
offense. The court established a test for Tennessee, stating that when an actor possesses materials
to be used in the commission of a crime at or near the scene of the crime, and the possession
serves no lawful purpose under the circumstances, the jury is entitled (but not required) to find
that the actor has taken a "substantial step" if such action is strongly corroborative of the actor's
overall criminal purpose.

b) Would your answer be different if Tennessee had used the last-step test or the physical
proximity test? If so, how?
If Tennessee had used the last-step test or the physical proximity test, the answer might be
different. These tests often require the criminal act to be very close to completion or physically
close to the intended victim. The court, in this case, moved away from the rigid last-step
approach, emphasizing the potential dangers of such an approach, especially in preventing
inchoate crimes from becoming full-blown ones. The court's decision suggests a shift toward a
more flexible approach, considering factors beyond the last step or physical proximity.