Criminal Law · Impossibility Criminal
Clear answer to: Can A Party Impossibility Criminal in Criminal Law? with key cases, examples, and exam tips for law students.
No, a party impossibility defense is generally not recognized in criminal law. The doctrine of impossibility does not usually relieve a defendant from liability for criminal attempts when the impossibility arises from legal circumstances.
In criminal law, the doctrine of impossibility refers to situations where a defendant believes they are committing a crime but the crime is not actually possible. There are generally two types of impossibility: factual impossibility and legal impossibility. Factual impossibility occurs when a defendant's goal is thwarted by a factual circumstance, while legal impossibility arises when the act would not constitute a crime even if completed. Courts often hold that neither type of impossibility generally serves as a valid defense to criminal attempt charges.
In the case of factual impossibility, courts maintain that a defendant can be held liable even if the crime attempted was not possible, as the intent to commit the crime is sufficient for liability. For example, if a person attempts to pickpocket an empty pocket, the impossibility does not negate their intent to commit theft. Conversely, in cases of legal impossibility, the defense may be viable. For instance, if someone tries to sell a non-contraband substance believing it to be illegal drugs, they cannot be convicted for attempting to sell drugs because the act is not a crime.
Key cases elucidating these principles include *People v. McElroy* (1988), where the court affirmed that actual impossibility does not negate liability, and *People v. Smith* (2006), which explored the nuances between factual and legal impossibility by distinguishing between different types of attempted actions. Ultimately, the courts emphasize maintaining accountability for intending to commit crimes regardless of the outcome.
In scholarly discussions, the concept of impossibility is often used to explore the limits of culpability in relation to intent versus action. Many legal scholars suggest that refining the standards for what constitutes criminal attempts and differentiating between factual and legal impossibility could help achieve fairer outcomes in criminal liability. Thus, while impossibility may provide some insights in legal analysis, it mainly reinforces the overarching principle that intent to commit a crime carries significant weight, regardless of the feasibility of the act itself.
A man attempts to rob a bank believing it to be full of cash but finds it closed and empty. His attempt is factually impossible but still punishable under criminal law as the intent to commit robbery is valid.
Questions about party impossibility often examine the principles of attempt liability and may test students on distinguishing between factual and legal impossibility.