People v. Rizzo

Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Charles Rizzo (Defendant) and three others planned to commit a robbery. They looked for the man they were supposed to rob, but had not found him when two police officers who were following them arrested them.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. An attempt requires a dangerous proximity to the accomplishment of the crime.

Facts. The Defendant and three other men planned to rob Charles Rao (Rao), who was to carry a payroll of about $1200 from the bank to the United Lathing Company. Two of the individuals possessed firearms. The Defendant and his companions looked for Rao or the person who had the payroll that day. They looked at the bank from which he was supposed to carry the money and looked at various buildings being constructed by the United Lathing Company. The men came to a building and the Defendant jumped out of the car and ran into the building. At that time, two police officers who were watching the men arrested them. The Defendant never did find the person they intended to rob.

Issue. Did the defendant commit the crime of attempted robbery?

Held. No. While the defendant intended to commit robbery, the four men never found the person they intended to rob. No attempt to rob could therefore be made until the intended victim came into sight.

Discussion. Even though the Defendant here clearly intended to commit the robbery, the element lacking was the proximity to committing the crime.