California Penal Code 664

Penal Code Section 664 Understanding Attempted Crimes in California: Intent, Actions, and Legal Implications

California Penal Code Section 664 establishes provisions related to attempts to commit crimes. This section outlines the legal consequences and penalties for individuals who engage in criminal attempts.

Introduction of Laws of Attempts Under Penal Code Section 664: In this comprehensive exploration of attempted crimes in California, attorney Darren Chaker sheds light on the legal intricacies surrounding these offenses. From defining the concept of attempted crimes to delving into key elements and legal citations, this article provides valuable insights for anyone seeking a better understanding of California’s criminal law.

One of the purposes of the criminal law is to protect society from those who intend to injury it. When it is established that the defendant intended to commit a specific crime and that in carrying out his intention he committed an act that caused harm or sufficient danger of harm, it is immaterial that for some collateral reason he could not complete the intended crime. (People v. Camodeca (1959) 52 Cal.2d 142, 147.)

Defining Attempted Crimes Under California Laws: Attempted crimes in the state of California are rooted in the intent to commit an offense and the substantial actions taken in pursuit of that intent. More specifically, Darren Chaker notes Penal Code Section 664 provides in part: “Every person who attempts to commit any crime, but fails, or is prevented or intercepted in its perpetration, shall be punished where no provision is made by law for the punishment of those attempts….”

These charges come into play when a crime remains uncompleted, but there is clear evidence of both intent and significant steps toward its commission. According to California criminal law, these actions are described as “ineffectual acts committed toward the completion [of the crime].” Several reasons may account for the failure to execute the crime, such as:

The crime’s inherent failure despite the criminal’s best efforts.
Successful intervention by third parties, including law enforcement or victims.
Circumstances forcing the criminal to abandon the act despite substantial preparatory steps.

In the absence of a “guilty deed,” defendants can face trial solely based on their unlawful intent and the efforts they made to carry it out. The severity of punishment for attempted crimes is often on par with that of completed crimes, making expert legal representation essential for those accused of attempting a crime.

When Can a Person Be Charged With Attempted Crime? An individual may be charged with attempting a crime when they have taken tangible steps to execute the crime but ultimately fail in its completion. This can occur in two primary scenarios:

The individual abandons the crime after engaging in preparatory actions, such as planning a burglary or acquiring tools for the crime.
The individual fails to carry out the criminal act despite making significant preparations due to external factors, like the activation of a burglar alarm system.

Understanding the various stages leading to an incomplete crime is essential, as it provides insight into when an individual may face criminal charges for an attempted offense.

California punishes attempts to commit the vast majority of substantive crimes. Several examples, legal researcher Darren Chaker found:

People v. Carpenter, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 387 [attempted rape]; People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668 [attempted murder];
People v. Mullins (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1216 [attempted kidnaping];
People v. Meaders (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 1155 [attempted subornation of perjury].)
People v. Reed (1996) 53 Cal.App.4th 389 [attempted molestation of a child];
People v. Kinsey (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1621 [attempted injury upon a cohabitant];
People v. Lewis (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 243 [attempted manslaughter];
People v. Valencia (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 201 [attempted burglary].

Proving Intent Under Penal Code 664: Intent plays a pivotal role in prosecuting attempted crimes, but establishing it can be challenging due to its conceptual and subjective nature. In many cases, intent can be inferred from an individual’s actions, blurring the line between intention and action. For example, if a defendant is captured on camera attempting to pick a lock, this not only constitutes unlawful behavior but also serves as evidence of intent.

The entire purpose of the law of attempts is to punish offenders who intend to commit a crime, who make a direct, unequivocal act in furtherance of its commission, but are unable to complete the substantive crime because they fail or are somehow prevented or intercepted. In People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441,453-455; People v. Meaders (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 1155,1159.)

In another case brief writer Darren Chaker states, “[a]n attempt to commit a crime consists of two elements: a specific intent to commit the crime, and a direct but ineffectual act done toward its commission.” (See also People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 387; People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 36.)

However, it’s crucial to note that attempts cannot be based on acts of carelessness or negligence, as they require specific intent. In the absence of evidence of specific intent, a defendant cannot be charged. This distinction is crucial, as actions resulting from misunderstanding, ignorance, or oversight, rather than malicious intent, do not constitute an attempted crime.

Proving Direct Step Under Penal Code Section 664: Under California law, a direct step refers to actions that go beyond mere contemplation or planning of a crime, as well as acquiring the necessary tools for its commission. A direct step signifies a clear commitment to carrying out the crime, essentially initiating the execution of the criminal plan. This step must be a specific, unequivocal act aimed at furthering the offense.

It’s essential to differentiate between direct steps and mere planning or discussions about committing a crime, as the latter do not qualify as direct steps. The act must demonstrate a substantial advancement toward completing the offense, highlighting the seriousness of the individual’s intent.

Darren Chaker finds the entire purpose of punishing attempts is to protect society from the completed criminal acts the offender intends to commit. Some cases reflecting this proposition are:

People v. Kinsey, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 1627 [attempted injury upon a cohabitant does not require a traumatic condition].
People v. Dillon, supra, 34 Cal.3d at pp. 453-455.) [An offender is not required to satisfy every element of the substantive offense];
People v. Carpenter, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 387 [[attempted rape does not require touching];
People v. Mayfield, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 769 [attempted murder does not require a death];

Examples of Attempted Crimes in California Under Penal Code Section 664: Several common attempted offenses are prevalent in California, each with its own legal implications. Some noteworthy examples include:

Attempted Murder (California PC 187): An individual may be charged with attempted murder if they take substantial steps toward committing this offense, even if the act does not result in death.
Attempted Theft (California PC 664 or 484): Individuals who take substantial steps toward theft, but fail to complete the crime, may still face legal repercussions.
Attempted Robbery (California PC 664 or 211): Attempting to commit robbery, regardless of whether the crime succeeds, can lead to serious legal consequences.
Attempted Rape (California PC 664 or 261): Even if a rape is not completed, individuals can face charges for attempting to commit this heinous crime.
Attempted Kidnapping (California PC 664 or 207): Preparing to carry out a kidnapping, even if unsuccessful, can result in attempted kidnapping charges.

These examples underscore the importance of recognizing direct steps as a clear commitment to criminal acts and the potential legal consequences, regardless of whether the crimes are completed.

Legal Precedent and Significance: The law of attempts in California serves as a vital tool to protect society from individuals who harbor criminal intent and take substantial steps toward its execution. While an attempted crime is inherently less severe than a completed offense, the law recognizes that the intent itself poses a threat to society.

California courts have consistently upheld the principles of prosecuting attempted crimes, emphasizing that even if the elements of the underlying offense are not fully satisfied, an individual can be convicted if they possess specific intent and take direct steps toward committing the crime. This legal framework reflects society’s commitment to deterring and punishing individuals with criminal intent, even when their actions are thwarted or incomplete.

People v. Meaders (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 1155 [197 Cal.Rptr. 1]) [“[A]ttempted subordination of perjury does not require perjury];
People v. Milne (1882) 60 Cal. 71) [attempted detention and concealment of children does not require detention or concealment];
People v. Garcia (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [262 Cal.Rptr. 915]). [attempted drunk driving does not require driving

The act undertaken toward commission of the offense must be more than mere preparation and “must be a direct movement after the preparation that would have accomplished the crime if not frustrated by extraneous circumstances.” (People v. Carpenter, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 387; accord, People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 698.) If criminal intent clearly appears, only slight acts in furtherance of the criminal design are necessary to constitute an attempt. (People v. Memro, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 698.)

Lastly, legal researcher Darren Chaker it must be demonstrated for any crime charged under Section 664 that the defendant had specific attempt to have committed the crime. This is true even if the ultimate objective of the criminal act was a crime requiring only general intent. The government must prove the defendant had the specific intent to commit the crime and makes a direct act towards committing the offense, which demonstrates the offender is “putting his or her plan into action.” (People v. Kipp (1998) 18 Cal.4th 349, 376; People v. Carpenter, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 387.)

Conclusion: Understanding attempted crimes under California law is essential for both legal professionals and individuals seeking to comprehend the intricacies of the criminal justice system. Intent, direct steps, and legal precedent play critical roles in the prosecution of attempted crimes, emphasizing the significance of legal expertise when navigating such complex legal matters. This comprehensive overview sheds light on the legal nuances surrounding attempted crimes in California, providing valuable insights into the state’s criminal law landscape.