« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
not, as it need not be, '“ the last proximate act prior to the consummation.”1
19.526. In the class of attempts mentioned in the last section, as in others, it is immaterial as a general proposition, whether the crime attempted is technically a felony or a misdemeanor. But the solicitation being, as we have seen, the first step only in a gradation of steps reaching to the consummation, the thing intended must, on principles already explained, 4 be of a graver nature than if the step lay further in advance. Thus an unsuccessful enticement to commit adultery has been held, in Connecticut, where adultery is felony, to be an indictable attempt;ó but, in Pennsylvania, where it is a misdemeanor punishable by fine not exceeding fifty pounds and imprisonment not less than three months nor more than twelve months, the court has held, that a conspiracy between a man and woman to perpetrate this offence is not indictable. The latter decision was put, indeed, on some peculiar views of the law of conspiracy, not tenable ; but the result seems to justify this use of it by way of illustration. And one can
. hardly doubt, that there may be, in Pennsylvania, an indictable attempt to commit adultery, when the act comes sufficiently near the full offence.
$ 527. Let us draw one further illustration from our propo
1, Ante, $ 522, note. And see, as illustrative, ante, § 249. In Reg. v. Eagleton, Dears. 515, 538, 24 Law J. N. s. M. C. 17, 19 Jur. 940, 33 Eng. L. & Eq. 540, Parke, B., said : “ The mere intention to commit a misdemeanor is not criminal. Some act is required, and we do not think that all acts towards committing a misdemeanor are indictable. Acts remotely leading towards the commission of the offence are not to be considered as attempts to commit it, but acts immediately connected with it are.” But on this point, ante, $ 315 a.
% Ante, $ 520.
Ante, $ 379 and note.
sition, that the act must have some inherent tendeney
$ 527 a. The foregoing discussion in this chapter, concerning the act, sufficiently explains how it must combine with
11 Ante, $ 516 et seq. -* Ante, $ 369, 423.
* Rex v. Hoost, 2 East P. C. 950; Rex v. Elliott, 2 East P. C. 951, 1 Leach, 4th ed. 175, 179; Rex . Collicott, Russ. & Ry. 212, 2 Leach, 4th ed. 1048, 4 Taunt. 308, 309; Rex v. Welsh, 1 East P. C. 87, 164, 1 Leach, 4th ed. 364; United States v. Morrow, 4 Wash. C. C. 733; Rasniek v. Com-, monwealth, 2 Va. Cas. 356 ; Rex v. Varley, 1 Leach, 4th ed. 76, 1 East P. C. 164.
? Reg. v. Stringer, 1 Car, & K. 188; Rex 0. Griffith, 1 Car. & P. 298."
the intent. Yet a single further observation will be useful by way of enforcing what has already been said. If the intent continues not while every part of the act necessary to complete the attempt is being performed, no criminal proseçation lies for what is done ; since act and intent must always.combine, and always in point of time. If, however, enough is done while the intent controls the act, no objection can be taken that something else, not essential, was done when the intent was not present.
IV. The Degree of the Crime of Altempt.
$ 528. All indictable attempts, whether to commit felony or misdemeanor, are misdemeanors. Once an attempt to commit a felony was supposed to be felony;8 but this doctrine has been long exploded. Therefore if one counsels to a felonious act another, who, in the absence of the adviser, undertakes it and fails, both may be jointly indicted for the atternpt; though, had the effort succeeded, the one would have been an accessory before the fact, and the other, a principal, in the felony; and the indictment could not have been in the same sense joint.6 Some of the English treasons, as the imagining of the king's death, are so purely attempts in their nature as not to admit of technical attempts outside of them.
Ante, $ 312, 314.
Ante, $ 249–250 a. : 1 Hawk. P. C. Curw. Ed. p. 72, § 3; 1 East P. C. 411; Dwar. Stat. 2d ed. 794.
* 1 East P. C. 85, 411, 415; Holmes's case, Cro. Car. 376; The State v. Boyden, 13 Ired. 505 ; Commonwealth v. Barlow, 4 Mass. 439; Rex v. Sco field, Cald. 397; Hackett v. Commonwealth, 3 Harris, Pa. 95; Rex v. Kinnersley, 1 Stra. 193. 5 Reg. v. Clayton, 1 Car. & K. 128; ante, $ 483.
Ante, $ 467 ; Train & Heard Preced. 15. * Rex v. Jackson, 1 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 149; 1 Hawk. P. C. Curw. Ed. p. 12, § 27, 30–33; Rex v. Tooke, 1 East P. C. 60; Reg. ä. Harris, Car. & M. 661, the note.
But it is believed, that both of the forms of treason known in this country, though being in some sense attempts, do admit, in the States, of indictable attempts besides, which are misdemeanor.4
1 Ante, § 357.
Ante, § 316, 318; Rex v. Stone, 6 T. R. 527; Rex v. Gordon, 2 Doug. 590; 3 Inst. 9. And see Respublica v. Roberts, 1 Dall. 39. "If there be only a conspiracy to levy war, it is J., in Friend's case, 13 Howell St. Tr. 1, 61. See
See 1 East P. C. 85. not treason." Holt, C. ante, § 525.
And see ante, § 507.
SECT. 528 a. Introduction.
536–542. The Consequences of the Division.
§ 528 a. The law separates criminal things into what it terms specific offences. The treatment of these offences, severally regarded, will occupy the chapters of our second volume. But some points concerning their combined relations to one another will be examined in this chapter. We shall consider, I. The Division of Crime; II. The Consequences of the Division; III. The Doctrine qualified in Various Circumstances.
I. The Division of Crime.
$ 529. The foregoing chapters of the latter part of the present book finish those divisions of crime, represented on our Diagram of Crime, at § 441. There are other divisions now to be treated of; namely, those which are connected with the separation of criminal things into what are called specific offences, as just mentioned. And to show these divisions some further drawings have been prepared.
$ 530. Each of the circles here. exhibited represents a specific offence.
When a man has done one wrong, or a series of wrongs tending to one result, his crime, on inspection, often presents divisions and combinations leaving a wide