AND · 21usc846:substantial-step
(formerly `variant preparation/insufficient`) Joyce found travel, available money and preliminary dealings insufficient on its record when the defendant refused the proposed purchase before a substantial step. (formerly `variant objective-corroboration/equivocal`) Oviedo reversed where selling a nonnarcotic substitute and other acts were equivocal under the Fifth Circuit test; intent alone cannot supply the act. These are circuit-specific applications, not universal rules that travel never suffices, abandonment excuses an already completed attempt, or sham drugs always make attempt impossible. Assess intent and step together in context.
Exact element source
attemptsSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title21.jsonl#title21_sec846; Unicode character offsets [44:52] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e517c5d16d23f29a12a2ee674170178c593255445eb2bf7e8f112f4236ea1e1.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; 2 observed cases | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 2 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 2; excluded context 0 | 2 | United States v. Oviedo — 525 F.2d 881 (1976) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976 — not · no-evidence (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/merits · counted 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) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Oviedo — 525 F.2d 881 (1976) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976 — not · no-evidence (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | Conduct beyond preparation strongly corroborating intent | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence The Fifth Circuit reverses under its objective-corroboration approach on this record. It does not announce that every sham-drug transaction makes attempt impossible. | objective-corroboration/equivocal-substitute-sale | First, Oviedo told the agent that the substance he was selling was heroin, and second, portions of the substance were concealed in a television set.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_525.jsonl#/f2d/525/0881-01; Unicode character offsets [9876:10024] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8166eb191075c37bba45d8e4131a1c603e57d5871017d0a0e49f59610b9c1979.Oviedo sold a substance he thought to be heroin, which in reality was an uncontrolled substance.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_525.jsonl#/f2d/525/0881-01; Unicode character offsets [2033:2129] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8166eb191075c37bba45d8e4131a1c603e57d5871017d0a0e49f59610b9c1979.We cannot conclude that the objective acts of Oviedo apart from any indirect evidence of intent mark his conduct as criminal in nature.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_525.jsonl#/f2d/525/0881-01; Unicode character offsets [10599:10734] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8166eb191075c37bba45d8e4131a1c603e57d5871017d0a0e49f59610b9c1979. |
| 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
interpretation
In making that determination, we recognized that in order to be guilty of an attempt, the objective conduct of the defendant must strongly corroborate the firmness of the defendant’s criminal intent.
United States v. Oviedo — 525 F.2d 881 (1976) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976 (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md))
In making that determination, we recognized that in order to be guilty of an attempt, the objective conduct of the defendant must strongly corroborate the firmness of the defendant’s criminal intent.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_525.jsonl#/f2d/525/0881-01; Unicode character offsets [11448:11647] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8166eb191075c37bba45d8e4131a1c603e57d5871017d0a0e49f59610b9c1979.(formerly `variant preparation/insufficient`) Joyce found travel, available money and preliminary dealings insufficient on its record when the defendant refused the proposed purchase before a substantial step. (formerly `variant objective-corroboration/equivocal`) Oviedo reversed where selling a nonnarcotic substitute and other acts were equivocal under the Fifth Circuit test; intent alone cannot supply the act. These are circuit-specific applications, not universal rules that travel never suffices, abandonment excuses an already completed attempt, or sham drugs always make attempt impossible. Assess intent and step together in context.
not-required
Successful commission of the substantive offense; the substantial step must nonetheless be proved.
No source quotation recorded.