Attempt, Conspiracy, and Solicitation
Thought Warfield and his partners did not finish their crime, they still can be charged with an inchoate crime, namely specific attempt. As a matter of fact, Warfield and his accomplices were very close to committing
robbery, and they would have succeeded to do so if the police officer would not notice the situation. In this view, the circumstances were out of control of the criminals. According to the proximity test[1], Warfield and
his accomplices were too close to the commission of crime because they have already gone into a victim's house, tied up and confined her children, and were about to force her to go to her workplace and open a safe that held cash receipts from the business where the woman worked.
At the same time, according to the res ipsa loquitur test, Warfield had no other purpose than force the victim to bring money from the safe of her office. Additionally, due to the probable distance test the criminals can charged with the attempted robbery as they entered the house of the victim unlawfully and confined her children, and would have completed the crime. Finally, according to the Crack the Code principle, Warfield, and his accomplices committed overt acts towards the completion of the criminal act[2]. In this view, Warfield can be charged with an attempt.
In conclusion, the actions of Warfield and his accomplices fall under the concept of the specific attempt of robbery. At the same time, the attempt may be defined as a criminal act due to the concepts of proximity,
res ipsa loquitur, probable desistance and substantial steps tests. Eventually, Warfield would have completed the act of robbery, in case no other external force, which was beyond his control, would interfere.
Bibliography
STORM, LISA M., CRIMINAL LAW BY STORM 255 (Releigh, NC: Lulu 2015).
-----------------------
[1] STORM, LISA M., CRIMINAL LAW BY STORM 255 (Releigh, NC: Lulu 2015).
[2] …
