Where does planning a crime become a crime, generally speaking?

[2A_Tom]

You are not a Fed.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It's perfectly legal for suspects to lie to me

Um, the Prosecuting Attorney has another view.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Oh, and he tried to fence the skunk to a local pet store for $75, far below the market value at the time of $200.

I now know there is a FMV for skunks.

 

[Libertarian01]

In retrospect it seems I was correct in my assessment with my friend - but barely.

Reviewing all of the answers I believe that planning a crime is not a crime, but taking any action toward executing the crime is a crime that is prosecutable. Do I about have that correct? (Generally speaking)

Doug

 

[Fargo]

In retrospect it seems I was correct in my assessment with my friend - but barely.

Reviewing all of the answers I believe that planning a crime is not a crime, but taking any action toward executing the crime is a crime that is prosecutable. Do I about have that correct? (Generally speaking)

Doug

If we are talking about conspiracy, there must be a plan involving more than one person and the step toward executing the crime. Attempt could cover such a scenario in a solo crime, although there can be a defense of abandonment depending on how/when the plan was aborted.

 

[2A_Tom]

So if I draw a Kevin McCallister plan with a couple other guys is the drawing of the plan constitute a covert act?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It might....if you decide to testify, which exposes you to cross examination about everything that makes it look like you meant to....and the judge or jury buys it.

The first case I tried was a juvenile delinquency adjudication for "Receiving stolen property." I was an intern at the prosecutor's office. The defense was: "I didn't know it was stolen." Based on what I see upthread, there are some who think that "I didn't know it was stolen" should carry the day. It didn't. There was all kinds of evidence that the "I didn't know" claim was not credible.

It's the same thing for: "I didn't intend..."

For further reading about this fun case:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break-room/418315-grand-theft-bunny.html#post6646651

Well, sometimes "I didn't intend . . . " works just fine. Did you read the Silvers case that just came out:

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinio...l0G_hYng_gz4R5RfwaAEW_4XmMQfID-bvmQYwZ0DilSrA

Conviction for cocaine reversed as he did not intend to possess cocaine.

 

[Denny347]

Um, the Prosecuting Attorney has another view.

Terry Curry? Hardly.

 

[HoughMade]

Well, sometimes "I didn't intend . . . " works just fine. Did you read the Silvers case that just came out:

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinio...l0G_hYng_gz4R5RfwaAEW_4XmMQfID-bvmQYwZ0DilSrA

Conviction for cocaine reversed as he did not intend to possess cocaine.

I think that case makes both your point and mine.

First, my point that a jury can infer intent from the circumstances without any direct evidence that "I intended to do it".

In order to convict Silvers of this offense, the State had to prove that he knowingly or intentionally possessed a straw or spoon that he intended to use for introducing a controlled substance into his body… Silvers asserts that “there is no evidence he used a straw or spoon to ingest a controlled substance.”… At trial, Rachelle testified that the straw found in the center console… was used to snort heroin… Indeed, heroin residue was found in the straw. Rachelle also testified that while she preferred to inject her heroin, Silvers snorted his… Although it is true that Rachelle couldn’t say for certain whether Silvers used Exhibit 5 to snort the heroin, the jury was entitled to believe that he did. In light of all the evidence, it was reasonable for the jury to infer that Silvers intended to use the straw to introduce heroin into his body. We therefore affirm his conviction on Count 5.

The defendant could have said: "I did not intend to use the straw to snort heroin" all he wants, but a jury can infer that he did and would have been lying based upon the circumstantial evidence.

However, as to your point, there has to be SOME evidence of intent. The only evidence was that he intended to buy heroin. There was no evidence that he intended to buy cocaine which was later found to be in the heroin he bought, not even circumstantial evidence. This is not a case of a claim of "I didn't mean to" carrying the day in eliminating intent, but is an example of there being no evidence of intent to begin with, and the State agreeing.

Silvers next argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove Level 6 felony possession of cocaine because “there is no evidence that [he] knew the heroin [that he bought and used] also contained another controlled substance in the mixture.”… The State concedes that the evidence does not support this conviction because there is no evidence that Silvers knew the heroin also contained cocaine.

Now, if the case involved a guy buying a ziploc of white powder which looked like and tested out to be cocaine, I think the jury would be allowed to infer that he intended to buy cocaine. In this case, it's the uncontroverted evidence that he was doing a heroin deal and cocaine was never mentioned that eliminates proof of intent as to cocaine (but obviously locks it in as to heroin).