TENNESSEE v REEVES
1. In Tennessee v Reeves, the Court was faced with the issue of whether the actions of Reeves and her friend constituted a “substantial step” toward the eventual murder of their teacher as set out by the Code. They ruled that the girls, by possessing the poison which was to be used and taking it to the actual school room with no lawful purpose except to commit the crime they had planned--could have been considered by the fact finder to be a “substantial step” towards their eventual goal of murder.
The rationale of the Court was that there is not a distinct line between the preparation for a crime and the act itself. It is a matter of “degrees”. In deciding this case, they pretty much abandoned the old “rule” which would have required that the girls had gone so far as to put the poison into the cup, for it to have been an actual criminal attempt. The Court also spoke about the primary objective of the law regarding a criminal attempt. They noted that unless the actors in cases such as this are held criminally responsible, one of the main objectives of the law—preventing the inchoate crimes from turning into completed crimes—would be meaningless.
2. I have a difficult time agreeing that these two girls took a “substantial step” towards the actual commission of the crime. By carrying the poison to the school, which was the only overt act that could be found, it does not comport with the Tennesse Code Section 39-12-101, which states in part:
(a) A person commits criminal attempt who….
(3) Acts with the intent to complete a course of action or cause a result that would constitute the offense, under the circumstances surrounding the conduct as the person believe them to be, and the conduct constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of the offense.
I would compare the poison in the girl’s purse with a person who is angry with someone and is found to be carrying around a gun. That person with one swift action could pull out the gun and shoot their target, but merely carrying a gun would not be considered attempted murder. There might be over crimes involved, such as not having a permit, or a felon possessing a firearm. But, unless further actions are involved, such as actually shooting at someone or possibly just pulling and pointing the gun, such a set of facts would almost certainly not be considered taking a “substantial step” towards killing someone.
In addition, the almost silly plans of these two young girls would seem to indicate that it would have been unlikely that an actual poisoning would have taken place. A fact finder, such as a jury, should have surely taken their age and immaturity into account when deciding this case.
3. The Tennessee Supreme Court abandoned the “old” test for the elements of criminal attempt which drew a bright line between the preparation to commit a criminal act and an over act directly moving towards the actual crime. This distinction was first construed in the case of Dupuy v State in 1959. And the courts had a very narrow construction for what an overact actually was in each case. Planning, preparing, arranging, or other such things would not have been considered enough to actually constitute an attempt at a crime, according to Dupuy.
But the Court in Reeves spelled out very definite criteria for meeting the “substantial step” required by the Code. They said that when “an actor possesses materials to be used in the commission of a crime, at or near the scene of the crime, and where the possession of those materials can serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances….”—this could be considered to meet the definition of a valid criminal attempt.
This new construction does not actual adopt the Model Penal Code specifically, but is much closer to it than was the previous interpretations of the Tennessee Code in the area of sort out the elements of a criminal attempt.