Of course.
Here’s an interesting twist, in fact. Let’s say the prosecution charges A with first degree, premeditated murder. A’s defense is: hey, wait, it wasn’t premedidated murder! I don’t even KNOW C. Sure, I premeditated B’s murder. But C was an accident. I should be charged with manslaughter!
Is A on solid ground?
Nope. Premeditation is part of intent/malice, and is transferable between victims.
AAHALA –
Why is it a legal distinction and not a practical one? To go back to my earlier (two year old) hypothetical, if I try to bake a pie but forget to turn the over on, have I then not really tried to bake the pie? Does the fact that dough will never turn to hot pie in a cold oven in any way mean I haven’t tried to bake the pie? I seems to me clear that it doesn’t.
If I knew the over was off, then obviously I wasn’t really trying to bake the pie, because I was fully aware I never could accomplish it. But providing I thought the oven was on, if I have done every step consistent with baking a pie, and with the intent to bake a pie, then I have in fact attempted to bake the pie. This is not a “legal” distinction. It’s what the word “attempt” means.
ANDY_FL –
When you construe this as “committing an act knowing that it was a crime when actually it was not,” you misstate the situation in attempt crimes. There is no point at which “attempting to kill someone” is “actually not a crime;” it is a crime – that’s the point. So a person who attempts to commit the act of murder may simultaneoulsy fail to commit murder and succeed in committing attempted murder. These are two different criimes. If a man attempts to kill another man, he intends both the crime of attempted murder and the crime of murder, and there is no reason he cannot succeed at one while failing at the other. And if he does, he is not “trying to do something that actually is not a crime” – he is trying and succeeding in committing attempt, and that is a crime.
Two different crimes: Attempted murder and murder. The fact that you shoot a dummy or a dead person may mean you did not – could not – commit murder, but it doesn’t foreclose your ability to commit attempt. The same is true for attempted burglary and burglary, attempted rape and rape, attempted theft and theft.
Now, this is not to say that the crime of attempt cannot itself consist of other elements in addition to the intent to do the act – such as taking a concrete step in furtherance of it. But that is a different issue from whether factual impossibility to do the ultimate act (such as murder) means you cannot still attempt the ultimate act. Clearly, you can. You just can’t know it’s impossible, because if you do, you’re not really trying, are you?
SHADE, in my jurisdiction, as in almost every other AFAIK, if you mean to kill A but instead kill B, you are still guilty of the murder of B. That is because my jurisdiction says a person is guilty of “first degree murder” if “with a premeditated intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes the death of such person or of a third person.” You are also, arguably, guilty of the attempted murder of A.
(Not that it matters but also note that when I say “in my jurisdiction,” I am not now in the same jurisdiction I was two years ago, when this thread first was active, though AFAIK the law on murder is substantially the same.)
I think the key to understanding these issues and how they play out is to keep in mind that “murder” and “attempted murder” are two different crimes. They do not necessarily depend on one another (except that, obviously, every murder is definitionally a successfully completed attempt). You do not have to be able to succeed in murdering someone in order to succeed in trying to do so. .
So somebody can go into an open-casket funeral, whip out a gun, and while screaming "i’m going to to murder you (name of dead person)!!!"shoot the corpse and in the end be charged with attempted murder?
However messed up his mind was, he still intended to kill…
Two years later, and I STILL think that pun’s hilarious.
Carry on. 
Let’s say you made a very realistic looking manequin of yourself and place it in front of the window of your house. Your Arch-Enemy sees it, thinks it’s you, pulls out a gun, and screams “DIE DIE DIE!” At the top of his lungs, while unloading on this dummy.
Should this guy be out on the streets? Most sane people would say no. That’s why Attempted Murder is a crime. 
I feel bad arguing for this case maybe because IANAL, but Jodi, I think its not me but you who is misstating the situation. You assume it to be an attempt crime, while you have no evidence to do so. Let me explain why:
Suppose a person X makes a voodoo doll of another person Y he wants to kill and stabs the doll repeatedly fully convinced that this will lead to the death of the actual person, is it attempted murder ? I think NO, because although X believes he is murdering Y, fact is, he is not. Intent is not the same as ATTEMPT.
Yes, yes, if A tries to kill B and kills C it’s murder, but we just spent a day arguing that if B’s dead, it’s not attempted murder. My point was, if he wasn’t legally ‘attempting murder’ is it still murder on C?
andy_fl, are you trying to say that person X didn’t do anything wrong? They tried to kill someone! Screw the obvious voodoo doll stuff, what if X tried to poison Y, but screwed up the formula, did he still do nothing wrong? Putting a harmless chemical in someone’s food isn’t a crime, so I guess it’s all ok.
Trying to kill someone is a crime in and of itself. If X wants Y dead and then takes action to kill Y, that is a crime, period. I don’t want these people on the street, one day they may actually succeed.
Cheese,
I am not saying that there is no crime involved. I am saying is that the person cannot be legally charged for murder or attempt to murder.
Law has to look at the evidence available and prove the intention of the suspect (unless the suspect confesses). So in your case of poisoning there is the following evidence:
A person who received a harmless chemical in food and the suspect who MAY have intention to murder this person. Can you explain how you go about proving the suspect’s guilt to attempted murder, if he chooses to remain silent ?
Similarly in the OP, the evidence is as follows:
A prior dead person’s body riddled with bullets. And the suspect who can be proven to have fired (using ballistics) at the dead body and also had broken into the dead person’s house. How do you go about proving attempted murder from this evidence ? (if the suspect chooses to be silent)
I have no sympathy for murderers or attempters, and i believe that they should be prosecuted to the full extent of law. But, law has its procedures which it has to also follow.
No, andy_fl, trust us, Jodi is right on this one. The voodoo doll scenario has come up before here, and I think someone dragged out some law (actually, a hypo involving voodoo dolls, IIRC) that they must not only have had the requisite intent, but have utilized a method with more than a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding.
One test in some jurisdictions for wheteher an attempt has been committed is the “substantial step” test, where a person has taken such action towards the completion of the crime that it would have been committed had it not been frustrated. You could actually kill a dummy or corpse with a gun if it were a person, but you can’t actually kill anyone with a voodoo doll.
You’re confusing questions of law with questions of fact. Whether or not he actually had the intent to kill is a fact question for a judge or jury to decide. Only when all facts are settled can you make an application of the law; whether the facts as presented constitute a crime.
Obviously, there must be evidence produced that proves beyond a resonable doubt that the suspect intended to kill the “victim”. Once that evidence is produced, it is clear that the suspect attemped to murder someone, and is guilty. If that evidence is unavailable, then it will be impossible to convict on attempted murder charges, and only other charges may apply.
Just because it turns out that you couldn’t complete the murder, doesn’t mean you didn’t try, and trying is a crime.
OK, Matrix-type situation. You’re in a holographically-created world. You think it’s real. You kill a hologram. The cops then shut down the hologram world and drag you off to jail. Same deal?
The prosecutor’s job isn’t as hard as all that, however. Most courts allow the jury to presume that the defendant “intended the reasonable consequences of his act.” In other words, if you fire a gun at someone, and he dies, it’s reasonable (and legal) to presume that that’s what you intended. Only by contending otherwise can the defendant rebut this presumption. The defendant does not need to prove otherwise, however; he only needs to raise a reasonable doubt.
Where you run into difficulty is proving that the defendant thought the victim was alive. This is where an eyewitness comes in handy: “He ran into the darkened room, screaming ‘Die! Die, you SOB, die, die, die!’ Then he turned on the lights and said ‘Damn it! He wuz dead already!’”
Blalron, if you tried to pull that stunt, the authorities would do the only reasonable thing.
They’d send you back to mannequindergarten.
