Return to Return to Non-CALJIC Defenses – Contents
F 4.033 n1 Defense Of Impossibility.
Where a defendant has the requisite criminal intent but “elements of the substantive crime [are] lacking” due to “circumstances unknown” to him, he can only be convicted of attempt–and not the substantive crime itself. (People v. Rojas (61) 55 C2d 252, 257-58 [10 CR 465] [because property was not actually stolen, defendants were guilty of attempted receipt of stolen property]; People v. Camodeca (59) 52 C2d 142, 147 [338 P2d 903] [because the victim was not deceived by and did not rely on the false representations, defendant was guilty of attempted grand theft by false pretenses].) If, however, the evidence at trial is sufficient to establish all elements of the crime, then the defendant may be found guilty of the substantive crime. (See People v. Rizo, supra; People v. Braz (97) 57 CA4th 1, 7-8 [66 CR2d 553].) See also FORECITE F 6.00 n1.
