The dangerous proximity doctrine is an American standard for distinguishing between preparation and attempt in a criminal case.[1]: 683 Under this standard, evidence that preparatory acts are an actual attempt is considered to be stronger if the offense is more probable and more grave or serious; if the defendant is nearer to completing the intended crime; and if the defendant's acts are likely to lead to the commission of the crime.[1]: 683 [2] However, the standard is not a clear bright line.
Historyedit
The standard was advocated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr while he was on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[1]: 683 While he did not use the exact phrase, Commonwealth v. Kennedy contains perhaps the earliest outline of the factors considered under the doctrine; the same factors were later used in deciding Commonwealth v. Peaslee.[3][4] Justice Holmes continued to advocate for the test in his time on the United States Supreme Court, including in his dissent Hyde & Schneider v. United States, which has been cited to establish the doctrine under New York law.[5][6]
The test has also been influential as a principle in the development of parts of the Model Penal Code.[7] However, the Model Penal Code's drafters ultimately chose the broader substantial step doctrine.[8] The dangerous proximity doctrine has significant similarities with the physical proximity doctrine, however, the dangerous proximity doctrine is slightly broader in that it does not require the defendant to be physically near the site of the intended crime.[1]
dangerous, proximity, doctrine, dangerous, proximity, doctrine, american, standard, distinguishing, between, preparation, attempt, criminal, case, under, this, standard, evidence, that, preparatory, acts, actual, attempt, considered, stronger, offense, more, p. The dangerous proximity doctrine is an American standard for distinguishing between preparation and attempt in a criminal case 1 683 Under this standard evidence that preparatory acts are an actual attempt is considered to be stronger if the offense is more probable and more grave or serious if the defendant is nearer to completing the intended crime and if the defendant s acts are likely to lead to the commission of the crime 1 683 2 However the standard is not a clear bright line History editThe standard was advocated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr while he was on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1 683 While he did not use the exact phrase Commonwealth v Kennedy contains perhaps the earliest outline of the factors considered under the doctrine the same factors were later used in deciding Commonwealth v Peaslee 3 4 Justice Holmes continued to advocate for the test in his time on the United States Supreme Court including in his dissent Hyde amp Schneider v United States which has been cited to establish the doctrine under New York law 5 6 The test has also been influential as a principle in the development of parts of the Model Penal Code 7 However the Model Penal Code s drafters ultimately chose the broader substantial step doctrine 8 The dangerous proximity doctrine has significant similarities with the physical proximity doctrine however the dangerous proximity doctrine is slightly broader in that it does not require the defendant to be physically near the site of the intended crime 1 References edit a b c d Kaplan John Binder Guyora Weisberg Robert July 26 2012 Criminal Law Cases and Materials 7th ed New York Wolters Kluwer Law amp Business ISBN 978 1 4548 0698 1 Fishman Michael R November 2015 Note Defining Attempts Mandujano s Error Duke Law Journal 65 349 via Lexis Nexis Commonwealth v Kennedy 170 Mass 18 1897 Commonwealth v Peaslee 177 Mass 267 1901 Hyde amp Schneider v United States 225 U S 347 1912 People v Werblow 241 N Y 55 1925 United States v Mandujano 499 F 2d 370 1974 footnote 5 6 Criminal Law Carolina Academic Press 2023 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Dangerous proximity doctrine amp oldid 1195979051, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
