The rule that “bad thoughts alone” cannot constitute an attempt results in the requirement that the defendant must have taken some steps to put the bad thoughts into action. Moreover, these steps must be, in the language of the Model Penal Code, “substantial” enough to “strongly corroborate the actor’s criminal purpose.” What should be done with the defendant who intends to commit a crime, and takes some act in furtherance of that intent, but the act taken is logically and practically impossible to cause the prohibited result?

Sometimes called inherent impossibility, should a defendant be charged with an attempt when any reasonable person would know the actions taken to complete the crime could not possibly have that result? Minnesota, as part of its attempt laws, has a provision that states:

An act may be an attempt notwithstanding the circumstances under which it was performed or the means employed to commit the crime intended or the act itself were such that the commission of the crime was not possible, unless such impossibility would have been clearly evident to a person of normal understanding.

See M.S.A. § 609.17 (2003).

Assume a prison inmate intends to escape but is apprehended after he has placed a dummy in his bed to confuse prison guards. Can he be charged with attempted escape? if so, does the fact that his plan—
to go through fi ve locked doors—is v irtually impossible, give him a defense under the statute quoted above? See State v. Espinal, 2004 WL 2093508 (Minn. 2004).