Young v State, Ct of App of MD,1985
Author: Smiles

Facts: D was found guilty of attempted robbery of a bank. In the early after, a police team observed D driving an auto in such manner as to give rise to a reasonable belief that D was casing several banks. D manifestly endeavored to conceal his presence by parking behind the bank, which he apparently selected to rob. He disguised himself w/ an eye patch and made an identification of him by turning up his collar and by donning sunglasses and a knit cap, which he pulled over his forehead. He put on rubber surgical gloves, clipped his belt w/ a scanner w/ police bank frequency, Except for the scanner, which he had placed on his belt while casing the bank, all this was done immediately before he left his car. As the D approached the bank he partially hid his face w/ his left hand, and his right hand was in his jacket pocket, in which he was carrying a loaded handgun. D walked to the bank door to enter and discovered that the bank was closed and the doors locked. He ran to his car and immediately drove away.

State argues that it is more than legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the D had a specific intent to commit the crime.

D argues that evidence is not compelling.

Issue: Whether the conduct leading to the D's apprehension established that he performed the necessary overt act towards the commission of armed robbery?

Ct’s analysis: Yes, using a “substantial step” as the criterion in determining whether an overt act is more than mere preparation to commit a crime.

Rule: A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting w/ the kind of culpability otherwise requires for commission of the crime, he purposely does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.