ÿWPCl% …# VU:a %› 04¡4Õé 0xø 0Dp ´ w@¼ 0Jü 0TF 0^š 0hø 0r` 0|Ò 0†N 0Ô 1ud U,Ù 0dU,iU *•B)¿DCè B+ AMH@•ÝÕ²‚1 D3³v~ævÓd 0@7# AOw#ÆÆ# 0PŒ$ 0DÜ$ D/ % BO%˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó˜€* tÔôÔô3|xT(((3ÝÙ$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó EFEGHEIUJKEL[MN «2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd d€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 6Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òFebruary€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝJudge€Holmes€noted€this€point€by€stating:€"Preparation€is€not€an€attempt.€€ButÏsome€à àpreparations€may€amount€to€an€attempt.€€òòIt€is€a€question€of€degreeóó."€Ïà àà àòòCommonwealth€v.€Peasleeóó,€177€Mass.€267,€272,€59€N.E.€55,€56Ï(1901)(emphasis€à àadded).Ì uÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€conclusion€was€drawn€long€ago€by€Judge€Learned€Hand,€who€stated€thatÏ"the€à àdecisions€[addressing€when€preparation€has€become€attempt]€are€tooÏnumerous€to€à àcite,€and€would€not€be€much€help€anyway,€for€there€is,€and€obviously€canÏbe,€no€à àdefinite€line."€€òòU.€S.€v.€Coplonóó,€185€F.2d€629,€633€(2d€Cir.€1950).€ÏInterestingly,€à àJudge€Hand€also€rejected€the€defendant's€argument€that€noÏattempt€responsibility€à àattached€until€the€moment€of€consummation€of€the€criminalÏact,€stating€that€"[t]o€à àdivide€'attempt'€from€'preparation'€by€the€very€instant€ofÏconsummation€would€be€to€à àrevert€to€the€old€[rejected€English]€doctrine."€€òòIdóó.€€€€Ì xÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€decision€is€limited€to€the€facts€of€this€case;€we€do€not€specifically€adopt€Ïany€à àof€the€examples€set€forth€in€ðð€5.01(2)€of€the€Model€Penal€Code,€but€simply€agreeÏà àwith€the€reasoning€underlying€subsections€(e)€and€(f).€€However,€we€do€note€thatÏà àseveral€courts€charged€with€the€responsibility€of€defining€"substantial€step"Ïà àhave€adopted€or€applied€the€examples€in€the€Model€Penal€Code.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ïà àWaltersóó,€804€P.2d€1164,€1167€(Or.€1991);€òòYoung€v.€Stateóó,€493€A.2d€352,€358„59Ïà à(Md.€1985);€òòCommonwealth€v.€Pratheróó,€690€S.W.2d€396,€397€(Ky.€1985);€òòStateÏv.€à àPearsonóó,€680€P.2d€406,€408€(Utah€1984);€òòState€v.€Latraverseóó,€443€A.2d€890,Ï894„95€à à(R.I.€1982);€òòState€v.€Workmanóó,€584€P.2d€382,€387€(Wa.€1978);€òòState€v.ÏWoodsóó,€357€à àN.E.2d€1059,€1063€(Ohio€1976);€òòU.S.€v.€Dworkenóó,€855€F.2d€12,€19„20€(1stÏCir.€à à1988);€òòU.S.€v.€Prichardóó,€781€F.2d€179,€181„82(10th€Cir.€1986);€òòU.S.€v.ÏMcFaddenóó,€à à739€F.2d€149,€152€(4th€Cir.€1984);€òòU.S.€v.€Joyceóó,€693€F.2d€838,€841€(8thÏCir.€1982);€òòà àU.S.€v.€Mandujanoóó,€499€F.2d€370,€376„77€(5th€Cir.€1974).€Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3¾¸$¢¢Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ , ÑÑ ` Ñ›Ñ7€'XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑØ ØÓ&€X°d&Óà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSON€ÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àPlaintiff„Appellee,€à àà àà àœ)à àà àFiled:€February€26,€1996›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àCARROLL€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌTRACIE€REEVES,à àà àà àà à)à àHon.€C.€Creed€McGinley,€JudgeÌÙ€€ÙßL€%&#;+'h|Ðÿ` Å `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àDefendant„Appellant.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.Ï02S01„9502„CV„00015ÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff„Appelleeóó:à àà àà àòòFor€Defendant„Appellantóó:ÌÌCharles€W.€Bursonà àà àà àà àRaymond€L.€Ivey€ÌAttorney€General€&€Reporterà àà àIvey,€Parish€&€JohnsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHuntingdon,€TennesseeÌMichael€E.€MooreÌSolicitor€GeneralÌÌMichael€J.€Fahey,€IIÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€TennesseeÌÌGuss€RadfordÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌEleanor€CahillÌAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌHuntingdon,€Tennesseeà@ àÔ€!„ÔÌÌà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€!XÔÌÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€AFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àDROWOTA,€J.Çà àÓÓThe€defendant,€Tracie€Reeves,€appeals€from€the€Court€of€Appeals'Ïaffirmance€of€the€trial€court's€order€designating€her€a€delinquent€child.€€The€trialÏcourt's€delinquency€order,€which€was€entered€following€a€jury€trial,€was€based€onÏthe€jury's€finding€that€the€defendant€had€attempted€to€commit€second€degreeÏmurder€„„€a€violation€of€Tenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101.€€The€specific€issue€for€ourÏdetermination€is€whether€the€defendant's€actions€constitute€a€"substantial€step,"Ïunder€ðð€39„12„101(a)(3),€toward€the€commission€of€that€crime.€€For€the€followingÏreasons,€we€hold€that€they€do,€and€therefore€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÏAppeals.€€ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òFACTS€AND€PROCEDURAL€HISTORYó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àOn€the€evening€of€January€5,€1993,€Tracie€Reeves€and€Molly€Coffman,Ïboth€twelve€years€of€age€and€students€at€West€Carroll€Middle€School,€spoke€onÏthe€telephone€and€decided€to€kill€their€homeroom€teacher,€Janice€Geiger.€€TheÏgirls€agreed€that€Coffman€would€bring€rat€poison€to€school€the€following€day€soÏthat€it€could€be€placed€in€Geiger's€drink.€€The€girls€also€agreed€that€they€wouldÍthereafter€steal€Geiger's€car€and€drive€to€the€Smoky€Mountains.€€Reeves€thenÏcontacted€Dean€Foutch,€a€local€high€school€student,€informed€him€of€the€plan,Ïand€asked€him€to€drive€Geiger's€car.€€Foutch€refused€this€request.€€ÌÌà àOn€the€morning€of€January€6,€Coffman€placed€a€packet€of€rat€poison€in€herÏpurse€and€boarded€the€school€bus.€€During€the€bus€ride€Coffman€told€anotherÏstudent,€Christy€Hernandez,€of€the€plan;€Coffman€also€showed€Hernandez€theÏpacket€of€rat€poison.€€Upon€their€arrival€at€school€Hernandez€informed€herÏhomeroom€teacher,€Sherry€Cockrill,€of€the€plan.€€Cockrill€then€relayed€thisÏinformation€to€the€principal€of€the€school,€Claudia€Argo.€€ÌÌà àWhen€Geiger€entered€her€classroom€that€morning€she€observed€ReevesÏand€Coffman€leaning€over€her€desk;€and€when€the€girls€noticed€her,€they€giggledÏand€ran€back€to€their€seats.€€At€that€time€Geiger€saw€a€purse€lying€next€to€herÏcoffee€cup€on€top€of€the€desk.€€Shortly€thereafter€Argo€called€Coffman€to€theÏprincipal's€office.€€Rat€poison€was€found€in€Coffman's€purse€and€it€was€turnedÏover€to€a€Sheriff's€Department€investigator.€€Both€Reeves€and€Coffman€gaveÍwritten€statements€to€the€investigator€concerning€their€plan€to€poison€Geiger€andÏsteal€her€car.€ÌÌà àReeves€and€Coffman€were€found€to€be€delinquent€by€the€Carroll€CountyÏJuvenile€Court,€and€both€appealed€from€that€ruling€to€the€Carroll€County€CircuitÏCourt.€After€a€jury€found€that€the€girls€attempted€to€commit€second€degree€murderÏin€violation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101,€the€"criminal€attempt"€statute,€theÏtrial€court€affirmed€the€juvenile€court's€order€and€sentenced€the€girls€to€theÏDepartment€of€Youth€Development€for€an€indefinite€period.€€Reeves€appealedÏfrom€this€judgment€to€the€Court€of€Appeals,€which€affirmed€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.€€Reeves€then€applied€to€this€Court€for€permission€to€appeal€pursuant€toÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11.€€Because€we€have€not€addressed€the€law€of€criminal€attemptÏsince€the€comprehensive€reform€of€our€criminal€law€undertaken€by€the€legislatureÏin€1989,€we€granted€that€application.€à àà àà àà àà àÌÓ  Óòòò òÌPrior€and€Current€Law€of€Criminal€Attemptó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌÌ€€à àBefore€the€passage€of€the€reform€legislation€in€1989,€the€law€of€criminalÏattempt,€though€sanctioned€by€various€statutes,€was€judicially€defined.€€In€order€toÏsubmit€an€issue€of€criminal€attempt€to€the€jury,€the€State€was€required€to€presentÏlegally€sufficient€evidence€of:€(1)€an€intent€to€commit€a€specific€crime;€(2)€€an€overtÏact€toward€the€commission€of€that€crime;€and€(3)€a€failure€to€consummate€theÏcrime.€€òòBandy€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€278,€281€(Tenn.€1979);€òòGervin€v.€Stateóó,€212ÏTenn.€653,€371€S.W.2d€449,€451€(1963);€òòDupuy€v.€Stateóó,€204€Tenn.€624,€325ÏS.W.2d€238,€240€(1959).€€ÌÌà àOf€the€elements€of€criminal€attempt,€the€second,€the€"overt€act"Ïrequirement,€was€by€far€the€most€problematic.€€By€attempting€to€draw€a€sharpÏdistinction€between€"mere€preparation"€to€commit€a€criminal€act,€which€did€notÏconstitute€the€required€overt€act,€and€a€"direct€movement€toward€the€commissionÏafter€the€preparations€had€been€made,"€òòDupuyóó,€325€S.W.2d€at€239,€240,€whichÏdid,€Tennessee€courts€construed€the€term€"overt€act"€very€narrowly.€€The€bestÏexample€of€this€extremely€narrow€construction€occurred€in€òòDupuyóó.€€In€that€case,Íthe€Memphis€police€sought€to€lay€a€trap€for€a€pharmacist€suspected€of€performingÏillegal€abortions€by€sending€a€young€woman€to€request€these€services€from€him.€ÏAfter€the€woman€had€made€several€attempts€to€secure€his€services,€he€finallyÏagreed€to€perform€the€abortion.€€The€pharmacist€transported€the€young€woman€toÏa€hotel€room,€laid€out€his€instruments€in€preparation€for€the€procedure,€and€askedÏthe€woman€to€remove€her€clothes.€€At€that€point€the€police€came€into€the€roomÏand€arrested€the€pharmacist,€who€then€admitted€that€he€had€performed€abortionsÏin€the€past.€€The€defendant€was€convicted€under€a€statute€that€made€it€illegal€toÏprocure€a€miscarriage,€and€he€appealed€to€this€Court.€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àA€majority€of€this€Court€reversed€the€conviction.€€After€admitting€that€theÏdefendant's€"reprehensible"€course€of€conduct€would€doubtlessly€have€resultedÏin€the€commission€of€the€crime€"had€he€not€been€thwarted€in€his€efforts€by€theÏarrival€of€the€police,"€òòDupuyóó,€325€S.W.2d€at€239,€the€majority€concluded€that:€€ÌÌÓÓà8 àWhile€the€defendant€had€completed€his€plan€to€do€this€crime€theÏelement€of€attempt€[overt€act]€does€not€appear€in€this€record.€€TheÏproof€shows€that€he€did€not€use€any€of€the€instruments€and€did€notÏtouch€the€body€of€the€girl€in€question.€€Under€such€facts€we€do€notÏthink€that€the€defendant€is€guilty€under€the€statute.€€Ìà8 àÌòòDupuyóó,€325€S.W.2d€at€240.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àTo€support€its€holding,€the€òòDupuyóó€court€quoted€a€treatise€passageÏconcerning€actions€that€constituted€"mere€preparation,"€as€opposed€to€actionsÏthat€would€satisfy€the€overt€act€requirement:ÌÌÓÓà8 àIn€a€general€way,€however,€it€may€be€said€that€preparation€consistsÏin€devising€or€arranging€the€means€or€measures€necessary€for€theÏcommission€of€the€offense€and€that€the€attempt€[overt€act]€is€theÏdirect€movement€toward€the€commission€after€the€preparations€areÏmade.€€Even€though€a€person€actually€intends€to€commit€a€crime,Ïhis€procurement€of€the€instrumentalities€adapted€to€that€end€will€notÏconstitute€an€attempt€to€commit€the€crime€in€the€absence€of€someÏovert€act.€€€ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€(quoting€14€Am.€Jur.€ðð€68€(1940)).€€€To€further€illustrate€the€foregoing€principleÏthe€majority€provided€the€following€example:€"the€procurement€by€a€prisoner€ofÏtools€adapted€to€breaking€jail€does€not€render€him€guilty€of€an€attempt€to€breakÏjail."€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àAs€indicated€above,€the€sharp€differentiation€in€òòDupuyóó€between€"mereÍpreparation"€and€"overt€act,"€or€the€"act€itself,"€was€characteristic€of€the€pre„1989Ïattempt€law.€€òòSee€e.góó.,€òòGervin€v.€Stateóó,€212€Tenn.€653,€371€S.W.2d€449Ï(1963)(criminal€solicitation€does€not€constitute€an€attempt);€òòMcEwing€v.€Stateóó,Ï134€Tenn.€649,€185€S.W.€688€(1915)(conviction€for€attempted€rape€affirmedÏbecause€defendant€actually€laid€hands€on€the€victim).€€In€1989,€however,€theÏlegislature€enacted€a€general€criminal€attempt€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101,€as€part€of€its€comprehensive€overhaul€of€Tennessee's€criminal€law.€€In€thatÏstatute,€the€legislature€did€not€simply€codify€the€judicially„created€elements€of€theÏcrime,€but€utilized€language€that€had€up€to€then€been€entirely€foreign€toÏTennessee€attempt€law.€€Section€39„12„101€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€asÏfollows:ÌÌÓÓà8 à(a)€A€person€commits€criminal€attempt€who,€acting€with€the€kind€ofÏculpability€otherwise€required€for€the€offense:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(1)€Intentionally€engages€in€action€or€causes€a€resultÏthat€would€constitute€an€offense€if€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€conduct€were€as€the€person€believesÏthem€to€be;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€Acts€with€intent€to€cause€a€result€that€is€an€elementÍof€the€offense,€and€believes€the€conduct€will€cause€theÏresult€without€further€conduct€on€the€person's€part;€or€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€Acts€with€intent€to€complete€a€course€of€action€orÏcause€a€result€that€would€constitute€the€offense,€underÏthe€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€as€theÏperson€believe€them€to€be,€òòand€the€conduct€constitutesÏa€substantial€step€toward€the€commission€of€theÏoffenseóó.ÌÌà8 à(b)€Conduct€does€not€constitute€a€òòsubstantial€stepóó€under€subdivisionÏ(a)(3)€unless€the€person's€entire€course€of€action€is€corroborative€ofÏthe€intent€to€commit€the€offense.ÌÌà8 à...ÌÌ(emphasis€added.)ÌÌÓÓà àÌÓ  Óà àòòò òThe€Substantial€Step€Issueó óóóÌÓ  Óà àAs€stated€above,€our€task€is€to€determine€whether€the€defendant's€actionsÏin€this€case€constitute€a€"substantial€step"€toward€the€commission€of€secondÏdegree€murder€under€the€new€statute.€€The€"substantial€step"€issue€has€not€yetÏbeen€addressed€by€a€Tennessee€court€in€a€published€opinion,€and€the€questionÏis€made€more€difficult€by€the€fact€that€the€legislature€declined€to€set€forth€anyÏdefinition€of€the€term,€preferring€instead€to€"leave€the€issue€of€what€constitutes€aÍsubstantial€step€[to€the€courts]€for€determination€in€each€particular€case."€€€ðð€39„12„101,€òòComments€of€Sentencing€Commissionóó.ÌÌà àIn€addressing€this€issue,€we€first€note€that€the€legislature,€in€enacting€ðð€39„12„101,€clearly€looked€to€the€criminal€attempt€section€set€forth€in€the€Model€PenalÏCode.€€That€section€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 à(1)€Definition€of€attempt.€€A€person€is€guilty€of€an€attempt€to€commit€aÏcrime€if,€acting€with€the€kind€of€culpability€otherwise€required€forÏcommission€of€the€crime,€he:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(a)€purposely€engages€in€conduct€which€wouldÏconstitute€the€crime€if€the€attendant€circumstancesÏwere€as€he€believes€them€to€be;€or€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)€when€causing€a€particular€result€is€an€element€ofÏthe€crime,€does€or€omits€to€do€anything€with€theÏpurpose€of€causing€or€with€the€belief€that€it€will€causeÏsuch€result,€without€further€conduct€on€his€part;€orÌÌà8 àà8 à(c)€purposely€does€or€omits€to€do€anything€which,Ïunder€the€circumstances€as€he€believes€them€to€be,€isÏa€òòsubstantial€step€in€a€course€of€conduct€planned€toÏculminate€in€his€commission€of€the€crimeóóÌÌModel€Penal€Code,€Section€5.01€(emphasis€added.)ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€State€argues€that€the€striking€similarity€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101€and€the€Model€Penal€Code€evidences€the€legislature's€intention€to€abandonÏthe€old€law€of€criminal€attempt€and€instead€adopt€the€Model€Penal€CodeÏapproach.€€The€State€then€avers€that€the€model€code€contains€examples€ofÏconduct€which,€if€proven,€would€entitle,€but€not€require,€the€jury€to€find€that€theÏdefendant€had€taken€a€"substantial€step;"€€and€that€two€of€these€examples€areÏapplicable€to€this€case.€€The€section€of€the€model€code€relied€upon€by€the€State,€ððÏ5.01(2),€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:€€ÌÌÓÓà8 à(2)€Conduct€which€may€be€held€substantial€step€under€paragraphÏ(1)(c).€€Conduct€shall€not€be€held€to€constitute€a€substantial€stepÏunder€paragraph€(1)(c)€of€this€Section€unless€it€is€stronglyÏcorroborative€of€the€actor's€criminal€purpose.€€Without€negativingÏthe€sufficiency€of€other€conduct,€the€following,€if€stronglyÏcorroborative€of€the€actor's€criminal€purpose,€shall€not€be€heldÏinsufficient€as€a€matter€of€law:ÌÌà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 à...ÌÌà8 àà8 à(e)€òòpossession€of€materials€to€be€employed€in€theÍcommission€of€the€crime,€which€are€specially€designedÏfor€such€unlawful€use€or€which€can€serve€no€lawfulÏpurpose€of€the€actor€under€the€circumstancesóó;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(f)€òòpossession,€collection€or€fabrication€of€materials€toÏbe€employed€in€the€commission€of€the€crime,€at€orÏnear€the€place€contemplated€for€its€commission,€whereÏsuch€possession,€collection€or€fabrication€serves€noÏlawful€purpose€of€the€actor€under€the€circumstancesóó;ÌÌà8 àà8 à...ÌÌ(emphasis€added.)ÌÌÓÓœThe›€State€concludes€that€because€the€issue€of€whether€the€defendant's€conductÏconstitutes€a€substantial€step€may€be€a€jury€question€under€the€model€code,€theÏjury€was€justified€in€finding€her€guilty€of€attempting€to€commit€second€degreeÏmurder.€€€œÌÌ›à àThe€defendant€counters€by€arguing€that€despite€the€similarity€of€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101€and€the€Model€Penal€Code's€attempt€provision,€theÏlegislature€intended€to€retain€the€sharp€distinction€between€"mere€preparation"Ïand€the€"act€itself"€characteristic€of€such€decisions€as€òòDupuyóó.€€She€supports€thisÏassertion€by€pointing€out€that€although€the€legislature€could€have€easily€includedÍthe€examples€set€forth€in€ðð€5.01(2)€of€the€model€code,€the€Tennessee€statuteÏdoes€not€include€the€examples.€€The€defendant€concludes€that€the€new€statuteÏdid€not€substantially€change€Tennessee€attempt€law,€and€that€her€conviction€mustÏbe€reversed€because€her€actions€constitute€"mere€preparation"€under€òòDupuy.óó€ÌÌà àInitially,€we€cannot€accept€the€argument€that€the€legislature€intended€toÏexplicitly€adopt€the€Model€Penal€Code€approach,€including€the€examples€set€forthÏin€ðð€5.01(2).€€Although€ðð€39„12„101€is€obviously€based€on€the€model€code,€weÏagree€with€the€defendant€that€the€legislature€could€have,€if€it€had€so€desired,Ïsimply€included€the€specific€examples€in€the€Tennessee€statute.€€That€it€did€notÏdo€so€prohibits€us€from€concluding€that€the€legislature€explicitly€intended€to€adoptÏthe€model€code€approach€in€all€its€particulars.€€ÌÌà àThis€conclusion€does€not€mean,€however,€that€the€legislature€intended€toÏretain€the€distinction€between€"mere€preparation"€and€the€"act€itself."€€Moreover,Ïwhile€we€concede€that€a€strong€argument€can€be€made€that€the€convictionÏconflicts€with€òòDupuyóó€because€the€defendant€did€not€place€the€poison€in€the€cup,Íbut€simply€brought€it€to€the€crime€scene,€we€also€are€well€aware€that€the€òòDupuyóóÏapproach€to€attempt€law€has€been€consistently€and€effectively€criticized.€€OneÏpersistent€criticism€of€the€endeavor€to€separate€"mere€preparation"€from€the€"actÏitself"€€is€that€the€question€is€ultimately€not€one€of€kind€but€of€degree;× ƒ' ××  ×€the€"actÏitself"€is€merely€one€of€the€termini€on€a€continuum€of€criminal€activity.€€Therefore,Ïdistinguishing€between€"mere€preparation"€and€the€"act€itself"€in€a€principledÏmanner€is€a€difficult,€if€not€impossible,€task.× ƒ( ××  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòU.S.€v.€Dworkenóó,€855€F.2d€12,Ï19€(1st€Cir.€1988);€òòU.€S.€v.€Brownóó,€604€F.2d€347,€350€(5th€Cir.€1979);€Levenbook,ÏòòProhibiting€Attempts€and€Preparationsóó,€49€U.M.K.C.€L.€Rev.€41€(1980);€Hall,ÍòòCriminal€Attempt€„„€A€Study€of€Foundations€of€Criminal€Liabilityóó,€40€Yale€L.€J.€789,Ï821„22€(1940).€€The€other€principal€ground€of€criticism€of€the€òòDupuyóó€approachÏbears€directly€on€the€primary€objective€of€the€law€„„€that€of€preventing€inchoateÏcrimes€from€becoming€full„blown€ones.€€Many€courts€and€commentators€haveÏargued€that€failing€to€attach€criminal€responsibility€to€the€actor€„„€and€thereforeÏprohibiting€law€enforcement€officers€from€taking€action€„„€until€the€actor€is€on€theÏbrink€of€consummating€the€crime€endangers€the€public€and€undermines€theÏpreventative€goal€of€attempt€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòPeople€v.€Terrellóó,€459€N.E.2d€1337,€1341Ï(Ill.€1984);€òòU.S.€v.€Prichardóó,€781€F.2d€179,€182€(10th€Cir.€1986);€òòU.S.€v.€Stallworthóó,Ï543€F.2d€1038,€1040€(2d€Cir.€1976).€€òòSee€generallyóó€Wechsler,€Jones€&€Korn,€òòTheÏTreatment€of€Inchoate€Crimes€in€the€Model€Penal€Code€of€the€American€LawÏInstitute:€Attempt,€Solicitation,€and€Conspiracyóó,€61€Colum.€L.€Rev.€571,€586„611Ï(1961).€€ÌÌà àThe€shortcomings€of€the€òòDupuyóó€rule€with€respect€to€the€goal€of€preventionÏare€particularly€evident€in€this€case.€€As€stated€above,€it€is€likely€that€under€òòDupuyóóÏno€criminal€responsibility€would€have€attached€unless€the€poison€had€actuallyÍbeen€placed€in€the€teacher's€cup.€This€rigid€requirement,€however,€severelyÏundercuts€the€objective€of€prevention€because€of€the€surreptitious€nature€of€theÏact€of€poisoning.€€Once€a€person€secretly€places€a€toxic€substance€into€aÏcontainer€from€which€another€person€is€likely€to€eat€or€drink,€the€damage€is€done.€ÏHere,€if€it€had€not€been€for€the€intervention€of€the€teacher,€she€could€have€beenÏrendered€powerless€to€protect€herself€from€harm.€€€€€€€Ìà àÌà àAfter€carefully€weighing€considerations€of€òòstare€decisisóó€against€theÏpersuasive€criticisms€of€the€òòDupuyóó€rule,€we€conclude€that€this€artificial€andÏpotentially€harmful€rule€must€be€abandoned.€€We€hold€that€when€an€actorÏpossesses€materials€to€be€used€in€the€commission€of€a€crime,€at€or€near€theÏscene€of€the€crime,€and€where€the€possession€of€those€materials€can€serve€noÏlawful€purpose€of€the€actor€under€the€circumstances,€the€jury€is€entitled,€but€notÏrequired,€€to€find€that€the€actor€has€taken€a€"substantial€step"€toward€theÏcommission€of€the€crime€if€such€action€is€strongly€corroborative€of€the€actor'sÍoverall€criminal€purpose.× ƒ) ××  ×€€For€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€CourtÏof€Appeals€is€affirmed.€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àœ_______________________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌÌÌConcur:€ÌÌœAnderson,€C.J.ÌReid,€White,€JJÌÌBirch,€J.€„€See€Separate€Concurring€and€Dissenting€Opinion›