Commonwealth v. Peaslee

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1901 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawCriminal LawAttemptArsoncriminal attemptpreparation vs attemptproximityovert acts

Facts

The evidence showed that the defendant arranged combustibles in a building so they were ready to be ignited and would burn the building and its contents if a candle were moved into place and lit. He offered to pay a young employee to go to the building, some miles away, and carry out the plan, but the employee refused. Later, the defendant drove with the young man toward the building, but when they were still about a quarter mile away, he said he had changed his mind and drove off. He never came closer to completing the burning than that.

Issue

Whether the defendant's conduct came close enough to the completed burning to constitute a criminal attempt, and whether, on the indictment as drawn, the Commonwealth could rely on the defendant's solicitation as an overt act without having alleged it.

Rule

The statute punishes not every act done toward a crime, but only acts done in an attempt to commit it. Preparation usually is not an attempt, although some preparations may amount to an attempt when they come very near accomplishment so that completion is highly probable; where further acts by the actor are still necessary, there must be a present intent to complete the crime without much delay at a time and place where he is able to carry it out. If the prosecution relies on solicitation or another overt act to make out the attempt, that overt act must be alleged in the indictment.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Worcester, Nora Benton soaked cardboard and cloth with kerosene inside her closed bakery after hours and arranged them so the shop would burn quickly once ignited. She then went home, planning to return the next evening to light them herself, but police discovered the setup before she came back.

Assuming the indictment alleges only Nora's arrangement of the combustibles, is that conduct most likely sufficient by itself to constitute an attempt?

Explanation. The governing rule is that preparation is generally not an attempt unless it comes very near accomplishment. A mere collection and arrangement of combustibles, without a present intent to complete the crime without much delay at a time and place where the actor is able to carry it out, is too remote. The majority rejected the idea that all preparatory acts are attempts, but also did not require actual ignition in every case.