A pharmacist, who deeply resented his ex-business partner, decided to poison him by lacing a sugar substitute commonly used by the partner with a lethal dose of a toxic chemical. The pharmacist replaced the original sugar substitute in his partner's office with the poisoned version, expecting the partner to use it in his coffee the next morning. However, the partner noticed the packaging was tampered with and did not use it. Can the pharmacist be held criminally liable for attempting to poison the partner?
Yes, because swapping the sugar substitute was a substantial step toward completing the crime.
No, because the partner discovered the tampered packaging and never consumed the poison.
No, because the crime was not completed, and the poisoning did not occur.
Yes, because the pharmacist had the intent to harm the partner, even though he failed to carry out the crime.
The pharmacist can be held criminally liable for attempting to poison his partner because he committed an overt act beyond mere preparation for the crime by actually swapping the sugar substitute with a poisoned version. Merely planning or harboring an intent to commit a crime is insufficient; a person must take substantial steps toward the commission of the offense, demonstrating a clear intent to complete it. In this scenario, switching the packaging constitutes a substantial step. The incorrect answers involve misunderstandings about the boundaries of preparation versus attempt or an erroneous interpretation of mens rea (mental state) in attempt crimes.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does 'substantial step' mean in criminal law?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is mens rea and why is it important in attempt crimes?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What distinguishes an attempt crime from a completed crime?