People v. Mike, 92 N.Y.2d 996 (1998)
To be guilty of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance, a defendant’s actions must come dangerously near completion of the sale, and be so near that there is a very high likelihood that the crime would have been completed except for some unforeseen intervention.
Summary
Defendant Mike was convicted of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance. The deal fell apart when the buyer, an undercover officer, refused to front the money. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, reducing the conviction to attempted criminal sale. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the defendant’s actions did not come close enough to completing the sale to constitute an attempt. The Court emphasized that the defendant’s actions must be in dangerous proximity to the completed crime.
Facts
An undercover officer arranged to purchase cocaine from the defendant. The defendant stated his intent to arrange the acquisition of cocaine. The deal failed because the undercover officer refused to provide upfront money for the purchase.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted after a bench trial of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by reducing the conviction. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the original conviction of attempt.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant’s actions came dangerously near completion of the sale and thus constituted attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance.
Holding
No, because the defendant’s actions did not come dangerously near completion of the sale, and the circumstances were such that there was not a high likelihood that the crime would have been completed except for some unforeseen intervention.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that an attempt to commit a crime requires that the defendant has “engaged in conduct which tends to effect the commission of such crime”. The Court cited People v. Warren, 66 N.Y.2d 831 (1985). The Court stated, “We have consistently held that to constitute an attempt, the defendant’s conduct must have come ‘dangerously near’ commission of the completed crime”. The Court found that the evidence had to establish that defendant’s actions were “so near to the accomplishment that in all reasonable probability the crime itself would have been committed, but for timely interference.” The Court found that the transaction here did not progress to the point where completion of the sale was “assured or practically certain”, because several aspects of the sale remained unresolved. The buyer had refused to front the money and the quantity of the drugs had not been decided. Because of these uncertainties, the Court found the defendant’s actions insufficient to support a conviction for attempt. Judge Bellacosa dissented, stating that the defendant’s admission and the circumstances leading up to the failed deal were sufficient to sustain the charge.