AND · 21usc846:attempt-intent
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.
Exact element source
attemptsSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title21.jsonl#title21_sec846; Unicode character offsets [44:52] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e517c5d16d23f29a12a2ee674170178c593255445eb2bf7e8f112f4236ea1e1.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| belief/non-narcotic-substitute-believed-heroin | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f2d/525/0881-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976 — satisfied | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f2d/693/0838-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982 — applied/hypothetical |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f2d/525/0881-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976 | Intent to commit the identified object offense | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved The court expressly accepts the jury’s belief finding; criminal intent alone still does not establish the required objective step. | belief/non-narcotic-substitute-believed-heroin | 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 thus take as fact Oviedo’s belief that the substance was heroin.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_525.jsonl#/f2d/525/0881-01; Unicode character offsets [1922:1989] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8166eb191075c37bba45d8e4131a1c603e57d5871017d0a0e49f59610b9c1979. |
| /f2d/693/0838-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982 | 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 variant | 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. |
Court interpretations
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.
/f2d/693/0838-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982
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.