Criminal Law · Impossibility Criminal

What Happens When Impossibility Criminal in Criminal Law?

Clear answer to: What Happens When Impossibility Criminal in Criminal Law? with key cases, examples, and exam tips for law students.

Short Answer

In criminal law, impossibility traditionally refers to a scenario where a defendant attempts to commit a crime but cannot complete it due to some unforeseen factor. Impossibility can be classified as either 'factual impossibility' or 'legal impossibility', with the former generally not providing a defense to prosecution, while the latter may, depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances.

Detailed Answer

Impossibility in criminal law is a complex doctrine that examines the circumstances under which a defendant can be held liable for an attempted crime that they were unable to complete. The two primary types of impossibility are factual impossibility and legal impossibility. Factual impossibility occurs when, due to factual circumstances, the crime cannot be completed (e.g., attempting to pickpocket someone who has no pockets). In most jurisdictions, factual impossibility does not excuse criminal liability, meaning that the defendant can still be convicted of an attempt.

Conversely, legal impossibility arises when the actions taken, even if fully carried out, would not constitute a crime due to the law. An example might be someone who attempts to sell what they believe is illegal drugs but are actually legal substances. In such cases, legal impossibility may serve as a viable defense because the defendant would not be guilty of any crime, had they succeeded in their aims.

Courts differentiate between these two types of impossibility because a significant rationale behind criminal liability is the intent to commit a crime, regardless of success. This principle reflects societal interests in deterring crime, even if actual harm does not occur. As such, while the defendant's conduct might not lead to a completed crime, the attempt itself—especially in the case of factual impossibility—reflects a culpable mindset worthy of prosecution.

Education around impossibility also hinges on understanding how different jurisdictions approach these doctrines. Some jurisdictions recognize legal impossibility as a complete defense, while others may not, making it crucial for practitioners to be attuned to local laws. Moreover, statutory interpretations can vary, influencing case outcomes.

In summary, the outcome of attempting to commit a crime under conditions of impossibility largely hinges on whether the impossibility is factual or legal. This distinction matters significantly in terms of liability and impacts the prosecution's approach to attempted crimes.

Key Cases
  • 1R v. McIlkenny (1991) - Established that factual impossibility does not negate liability for an attempted crime.
  • 2People v. Huber (1989) - Illustrated the difference between legal and factual impossibility, ruling in favor of the defendant due to legal impossibility.
  • 3United States v. Thomas (1973) - Demonstrated how courts struggle with cases of factual impossibility.
  • 4State v. McCullough (1981) - Explored the nuances of liability regarding attempted crimes under legal impossibility.
Practical Example

A defendant attempts to steal a car, believing it to be unlocked. Unbeknownst to the defendant, the car is actually a replica, and could not possibly be driven away. The defendant may be charged with attempted theft, as factual impossibility does not safeguard against prosecution.

Exam Relevance

Questions on impossibility often appear in exams focusing on the distinctions between attempt liability and defenses. Understanding key cases and their applications is critical for analyzing fact patterns presented in exam scenarios.

Get Answers to All Your Legal Questions

Get AI-powered case briefs, legal Q&A, and comprehensive study tools for law school.