Vaughn v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Hampton v. State

    468 N.E.2d 1077 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 13 times
    Holding evidence sufficient to support conviction for attempted robbery where defendant parked his car near restaurant building next to a busy highway, hid in the bushes attempting to avoid light from passing cars and was found wearing a ski mask which could be pulled down over his face, even though defendant did not enter restaurant or accost employees

    An attempt to commit a crime is a felony or misdemeanor of the same class as the crime attempted.Johnson v. State, (1984) Ind., 455 N.E.2d 932, 936; Blow v. State, (1983) Ind., 445 N.E.2d 1369, 1371; Zickefoose v. State, (1979) 270 Ind. 618, 388 N.E.2d 507; Harwei, Inc. v. State, (1984) Ind. App., 459 N.E.2d 52, 58; Vaughn v. State, (1981) Ind. App., 426 N.E.2d 113, 115. Hampton argues he did not take a "substantial step" toward the commission of robbery because he (a) never entered the Pizza Hut, nor (b) placed anyone in fear.

  2. Hernandez–cruz v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

    651 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2011)

    State courts called upon to consider what actions support a conviction for attempted shoplifting generally hold that the suspect must have taken active steps to conceal the merchandise or have attempted to leave the store without paying, or both. See, e.g., Illinois v. Falgares, 28 Ill.App.3d 72, 328 N.E.2d 210, 211 (1975) (“The substantial step was taken when the defendant placed the merchandise in his bag, and passed a checkout counter into another department.”); Vaughn v. Indiana, 426 N.E.2d 113, 115 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (holding that the defendant took a substantial step toward larceny by stuffing a skirt and blouse into his jacket sleeve, and commenting that: “Packing a store's garments into the sleeve of a jacket is a most peculiar manner of shopping. These actions were more than a trivial, preliminary step in the course of executing a theft.”); Missouri v. Shivelhood, 946 S.W.2d 263, 266 (Mo.Ct.App.1997) (“Defendant's act of concealing the items in the shopping cart with a coat was a ‘substantial step’ towards the commission of that offense.

  3. Hernandez-Cruz v. Holder

    651 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    State courts called upon to consider what actions support a conviction for attempted shoplifting generally hold that the suspect must have taken active steps to conceal the merchandise or have attempted to leave the store without paying, or both. See, e.g., Illinois v. Falgares, 28 Ill.App.3d 72, 328 N.E.2d 210, 211 (1975) ("The substantial step was taken when the defendant placed the merchandise in his bag, and passed a checkout counter into another department."); Vaughn v. Indiana, 426 N.E.2d 113, 115 (Ind.Ct.App. 1981) (holding that the defendant took a substantial step toward larceny by stuffing a skirt and blouse into his jacket sleeve, and commenting that: "Packing a store's garments into the sleeve of a jacket is a most peculiar manner of shopping. These actions were more than a trivial, preliminary step in the course of executing a theft."); Missouri v. Shivelhood, 946 S.W.2d 263, 266 (Mo.Ct.App. 1997) ("Defendant's act of concealing the items in the shopping cart with a coat was a 'substantial step' towards the commission of that offense.

  4. Cohen v. State

    714 N.E.2d 1168 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 17 times
    Affirming attempted murder conviction under accomplice liability theory where defendant chased victim, tackled him, and restrained him so that third man was able to shoot victim in the head

    "In Indiana, the law of attempt focuses on the substantial step the defendant has completed, not on what was left undone." Vaughn v. State, 426 N.E.2d 113, 115 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). "An attempt to commit a crime is a felony or misdemeanor of the same class as the crime attempted.