United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982-12-03
21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: Sufficiency appeal from attempted possession conviction; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
The intent question is assumed, while conduct is decided. The quoted discussion of abandonment is tied to absence of a sufficient step, not a freestanding renunciation defense.
Claimant outcome refers to the prosecuting government, not the defendant-appellant; remanded and mixed retain unresolved or split dispositions.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 8
| Case | Identified offense in Subchapter I | Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object | Knowledge of the unlawful agreement and objective | Knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement | Withdrawal before the applicable limitations period | Intent to commit the identified object offense |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Joyce — 693 F.2d 838 (1982) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982 (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/hypothetical |
Elements 7–8 of 8
| Case | Conduct beyond preparation strongly corroborating intent | Object-offense penalty incorporation |
|---|---|---|
| United States v. Joyce — 693 F.2d 838 (1982) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982 (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Joyce — 693 F.2d 838 (1982) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982 — not reached (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Intent to commit the identified object offense | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / hypotheticalThe court assumes intent arguendo rather than affirming a separate positive intent finding. | Unspecified route | With this in mind, we conclude that even assuming Joyce went to St. Louis intending to purchase cocaine, there was clearly insufficient evidence to establish that he engaged in conduct constituting a “substantial step” toward the commission of the crime of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_693.jsonl#/f2d/693/0838-01; Unicode character offsets [7852:8161] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3430ab5d97a721f9ac9ce0d38b95c42a81d17b4dd22ffc420b9317df2813c32e. |
| United States v. Joyce — 693 F.2d 838 (1982) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982 — not · no-evidence (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Conduct beyond preparation strongly corroborating intent | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence The government’s evidence did not pass preparation on this record. Withdrawal before the step is not a universal defense after a completed attempt. | preparation/refused-money-and-returned-package | While Joyce professed a desire to purchase cocaine during his preliminary discussions with Jones, Joyce never attempted to carry through with that desire by producing the money necessary to purchase and hence ultimately possess the cocaine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_693.jsonl#/f2d/693/0838-01; Unicode character offsets [10864:11104] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3430ab5d97a721f9ac9ce0d38b95c42a81d17b4dd22ffc420b9317df2813c32e.And, although Jones gave Joyce the sealed and wrapped package said to contain a kilogram of cocaine, Joyce did not open the package but immediately returned the package to Jones who in turn refused to open the package because Joyce refused to produce the money necessary to effectuate the purchase of a pound of cocaine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_693.jsonl#/f2d/693/0838-01; Unicode character offsets [11105:11425] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3430ab5d97a721f9ac9ce0d38b95c42a81d17b4dd22ffc420b9317df2813c32e.Whatever intention Joyce had to procure cocaine was abandoned prior to the commission of a necessary and substantial step to effectuate the purchase of cocaine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_693.jsonl#/f2d/693/0838-01; Unicode character offsets [8162:8322] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3430ab5d97a721f9ac9ce0d38b95c42a81d17b4dd22ffc420b9317df2813c32e. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
the requisite elements of attempt are (1) an intent to engage in criminal conduct, and (2) conduct constituting a “substantial step” towards the commission of the substantive offense which strongly corroborates the actor’s criminal intent.
United States v. Joyce — 693 F.2d 838 (1982) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982 (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed)
the requisite elements of attempt are (1) an intent to engage in criminal conduct, and (2) conduct constituting a “substantial step” towards the commission of the substantive offense which strongly corroborates the actor’s criminal intent.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_693.jsonl#/f2d/693/0838-01; Unicode character offsets [6023:6262] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3430ab5d97a721f9ac9ce0d38b95c42a81d17b4dd22ffc420b9317df2813c32e.Judicial interpretation supplies the attempt test missing from enacted text. Intent must target the particular object, including intent to distribute where that is the object; awareness that a transaction might occur is insufficient.