People v. Jaffe

New York Appellate Division, First Department · 1906 · Criminal Law

19 N.Y. Crim. 277 (1906)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawattemptlegal impossibilityreceiving stolen propertyfactual impossibilitycriminal attemptstolen goodsintent

Facts

A clerk employed by Goddard & Sons had previously stolen goods from the firm and claimed to have sold them to the defendant, a tailor, though no charge in this case was based on those earlier dealings. As to the cloth named in the indictment, the goods were originally stolen but were later recovered by the owners, marked for identification, and then given back to the clerk under an arrangement with the police so that he could try to sell them to the defendant. The evidence permitted the jury to find that the defendant accepted the cloth and paid $2.50 believing it to have been stolen. The prosecution conceded, however, that by the time of the transaction the goods were no longer stolen property.

Issue

Can a defendant be convicted of attempting to receive stolen property knowing it to have been stolen when, at the time of receipt, the goods were no longer stolen and the completed offense therefore could not have been committed? More broadly, does legal impossibility bar conviction for attempt under these circumstances?

Rule

Under New York Penal Code section 34, an attempt consists of an act done with intent to commit a crime that tends but fails to effect its commission. The controlling test is whether the actor had the criminal intent and performed acts tending to consummate the crime; the question is determinable solely by the condition of the actor's mind and his conduct, even though completion of the offense proves impossible because of facts unknown to him.

🔒

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 Buffalo, Lena Ortiz agrees to buy a laptop from Devon Pike after Devon tells her he stole it from a dorm room. Unknown to Lena, campus security had already recovered the laptop, returned it to its owner, and then arranged for Devon to offer it for sale as part of an investigation. Lena brings cash, inspects the laptop, and reaches for it before officers step in.

Under the majority opinion's approach, is Lena guilty of attempted receipt of stolen property?

Explanation. The majority held that attempt turns on the actor's criminal intent and conduct, not on unknown circumstances making completion impossible. If the defendant believed the goods were stolen and performed acts tending to receive them, attempt liability may attach even though the goods had lost their stolen character.