Evans v. State

453 S.E.2d 100 · 1995

Facts

Derek Evans, Christopher Tinch, and Jermaine Corbitt discussed stealing stereo equipment from automobiles. They were in possession of screwdrivers, pliers, and various car keys. Tinch drove the trio in his car to a mall parking lot to find a car to break into. They slowly drove through the parking lots of the mall and two other nearby shopping centers for approximately forty-five minutes. They left without entering an automobile because they were being followed by a pickup truck, which they later learned was occupied by undercover police officers.

Issue

1. Was there sufficient evidence to prove that Evans and Tinch took a substantial step toward entering an automobile with intent to commit a theft? 2. Did the trial court err in denying the motion to suppress evidence, given claims that police lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop or probable cause for arrest? 3. Did Tinch knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial?

Holding

1. Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that Evans and Tinch took a substantial step toward criminal attempt. 2. No, the police stop, search, and arrest were valid, so the motion to suppress was properly denied. 3. No, Tinch knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial. The judgments of conviction were affirmed.

Rule

A person commits criminal attempt when, with intent to commit a specific crime, they perform any act constituting a substantial step toward its commission. This 'substantial step' shifts emphasis to what the actor has already done, and further steps needed for completion do not preclude a finding of substantiality. Mere preparatory acts not proximately leading to the crime's consummation are insufficient. An investigatory stop requires specific, articulable facts giving rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, not just a hunch. Probable cause for arrest can be established by suspicious activity, discovery of tools, and misleading statements. A jury trial waiver must be personally, intelligently, and knowingly made, which can be shown by the record or extrinsic evidence.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.