State v. Stewart - 143 Wis. 2d 28, 420 N.W.2d 44 (1988)

Rule:

In case law the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has interpreted Wis. Stat. § 939.32(3) as establishing two elements for the crime of attempt: (1) an intent to commit the crime charged; and (2) sufficient acts in furtherance of the criminal intent to demonstrate unequivocally that it was improbable the accused would desist from the crime of his or her own free will. In order for defendant to be found guilty of attempted robbery pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 943.32, 939.32(2) (the general attempt statute), it must only be shown that: (1) defendant's actions in furtherance of the crime clearly demonstrate, under the circumstances that he had the requisite intent to commit the crime of attempted robbery; and (2) that having formed such intent defendant had taken sufficient steps in furtherance of the crime so that it was improbable that he would have voluntarily terminated his participation in the commission of the crime.

Facts:

Defendant was charged with attempted robbery, party to a crime, Wis. Stat. §§ 943.32(1)(b), 939.32(3), 939.05 (1985-86). The only evidence at trial was the testimony of the complainant, who testified that the defendant, together with two other men, demanded that he give them money. The complainant testified that he felt threatened throughout the encounter, which lasted less than three minutes. None of the men ever touched him or raised a hand to him. The defendant was found guilty of attempted robbery. On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence at trial was not sufficient to prove he acted with the requisite intent. The court of appeals reversed defendant’s conviction. The prosecution sought a review of the decision. 

Issue:

Was the evidence sufficient to convict defendant of attempted robbery? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that the evidence adduced, believed, and rationally considered by the trier of fact was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to compel the complainant to turn over his money under threat of force; thus, the evidence satisfied the first element of attempted robbery, intent to commit robbery. Moreover, the court held that the evidence was sufficient for the trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's conduct in furtherance of his intent to commit robbery had proceeded far enough toward completion of the crime to make it improbable that he would desist; thus, the prosecution had proven the second element of the crime of attempt.