StudyG Logo
Study G
Concept Breakdowns

MPC vs Common Law Approach to Attempt Liability

These flashcards cover how criminal attempt liability is analyzed under both common law and the Model Penal Code, a comparison that appears on virtually every bar exam. Common law uses proximity-based tests to determine how close the defendant got to completing the crime, while the MPC adopts a substantial step test focused on criminal purpose. Mastering the differences in tests, abandonment defenses, and the impossibility doctrine is essential for criminal law essays and multiple-choice questions.

Interactive Deck

5 Cards
1
Front

What is the substantial step test under the MPC?

Click to reveal
1
Back

Under the MPC, attempt requires:

  1. Acting purposely or knowingly toward completing a crime
  2. A substantial step that is strongly corroborative of criminal purpose

The substantial step test focuses on what the defendant has already done — not how much remains — making it easier to establish attempt liability than most common law tests.

2
Front

What are the main common law proximity tests for attempt?

Click to reveal
2
Back

Common law uses multiple tests to determine if a defendant crossed from preparation into attempt:

  • Last proximate act: must have done the final act necessary (very narrow)
  • Physical proximity: must be very close to completion
  • Dangerous proximity (Holmes): the closer to completion and more serious the crime, the stronger the case
  • Unequivocality: conduct unambiguously manifests criminal intent
3
Front

How does abandonment work differently under MPC vs common law?

Click to reveal
3
Back

Common law: abandonment is generally not a defense once attempt is complete — voluntary withdrawal does not undo criminal liability.

MPC: abandonment is an affirmative defense if it is:

  • Voluntary (not due to increased risk of detection or difficulty)
  • Complete (total renunciation, not postponement)

The MPC rewards genuine change of heart; common law does not.

4
Locked

What mens rea is required for attempt under the MPC?

5
Locked

How does impossibility apply differently under common law vs MPC?

Master this topic effortlessly.

Study G helps you master any topic effortlessly using proven learning algorithms and smart review timing

Download Study G

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between the substantial step test and the dangerous proximity test?

The substantial step test (MPC) focuses on what the defendant has already done and asks whether it strongly corroborates criminal purpose — liability attaches earlier in the process.

The dangerous proximity test (common law) evaluates how close the defendant is to completing the crime and how serious the harm would be — it requires more progress toward completion before liability attaches.

Why does impossibility matter more under common law than the MPC?

Under common law, legal impossibility is a complete defense because the law only criminalizes conduct that could actually constitute a crime if completed. The MPC eliminates this distinction — if the defendant believed the circumstances were as imagined, attempt liability applies regardless of whether the act was factually or legally impossible. This makes the MPC significantly broader in reach for attempt charges.

Is attempt a specific intent crime?

Yes. Under common law, attempt is a specific intent crime — the defendant must have intended to commit the target offense, even if the target crime itself is only a general intent crime.

Under the MPC, attempt requires acting purposely toward all elements of the target offense. This means voluntary intoxication can be a defense to attempt charges in both common law and MPC jurisdictions.