Attempt Charges in Minnesota: Can You Be Convicted of a Crime You Didn't Finish?

What Is a Criminal Attempt Under Minnesota Law?

Minnesota's attempt statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.17, says that whoever, with intent to commit a crime, does an act that is "a substantial step toward, and more than preparation for," the commission of that crime is guilty of an attempt.

Courts generally break an attempt into these elements:

• Intent to commit a specific crime;
• At least one overt act that is a substantial step toward that crime;
• Failure to actually complete the crime; and
• The apparent possibility of committing it.

What this means for you: The prosecution has to prove you meant to commit a particular crime and took a real step toward it. Both pieces are vulnerable to challenge — intent is often inferred from circumstances, and whether an act was a "substantial step" or just preparation is frequently arguable.

Preparation vs. a "Substantial Step": Where Is the Line?

This is the central battleground in most attempt cases. Minnesota law requires more than "mere preparation, remote from the time and place of the intended crime." The act has to show an unequivocal commitment to going through with the crime.

The Minnesota Supreme Court's leading discussion comes from State v. Dumas, which acknowledged there is no single rule that fits every case. As a general principle, there must be intent followed by an overt act that tends — but fails — to accomplish the crime. The act doesn't have to be the last step before completion, and it doesn't have to be something that would inevitably finish the crime if uninterrupted. But it must go beyond planning and "directly tend in some substantial degree" to accomplish the crime.

A few concrete points Minnesota courts have made:

• Just agreeing or soliciting someone to commit a crime is usually not enough on its own. In one well-known case, a defendant who hired someone to kill his mother was guilty of conspiracy, but the agreement alone was not the "substantial step" needed for attempt.
• You don't have to commit the final act. Acts substantially tending toward the crime can be enough.

What this means for you: If the state's evidence shows talk, plans, or early preparation but not a decisive step, that gap is exactly where an attempt charge can fall apart.

Do I Need to Have Intended the Crime Itself?

Yes — and the intent has to match the actual crime charged. Minnesota requires the intent to commit the specific underlying offense, not some vague or general wrongdoing.

This has an important consequence: crimes based on recklessness or carelessness generally can't be "attempted," because you can't intend to be careless. Most clearly, attempted homicide requires a specific intent to cause death. If that intent to kill isn't there, there is no attempted murder — even in a situation where someone could have died.

What Are the Penalties for an Attempt in Minnesota?

Under § 609.17, subd. 4, the penalty for an attempt is tied to the crime you attempted:

• Generally, the maximum sentence is one-half of the maximum for the completed crime (with a statutory floor — not less than 90 days or a $100 fine).
• If the attempted crime carries a maximum of life imprisonment, the attempt can be punished by up to 20 years.

In addition, people who qualify as "dangerous" or "repeat" felony offenders can face increased sentences under separate sentencing-enhancement law.

What this means for you: "Only an attempt" does not mean a minor penalty. An attempt tied to a serious felony can still carry years of prison exposure.

The Impossibility Question: What If the Crime Couldn't Actually Happen?

Minnesota treats "impossibility" in a specific way, and it usually does not get a defendant off the hook.

• Factual impossibility is not a defense. If the crime failed only because of facts you didn't know, you can still be convicted of attempt. Example: trying to buy property you believe is stolen, when it actually isn't.
• Legal impossibility is not a defense in Minnesota either. The Minnesota Supreme Court, in State v. Bird, held that the legislature eliminated the legal-impossibility defense for attempt charges.
• "Inherent" impossibility can be a defense — but only in extreme cases where completing the crime was impossible in a way that would be "clearly evident to a person of normal understanding." The classic examples from the statute's commentary are absurd: trying to sink a battleship with a pop-gun, or kill someone "by magic."

What this means for you: Arguing "it never could have worked" rarely succeeds unless the means were so absurd that no reasonable person would think the crime was possible.

Can I Avoid Liability by Backing Out? (The Abandonment Defense)

Sometimes. Minnesota recognizes a voluntary abandonment defense: it is a defense that the crime was not completed because the accused "desisted voluntarily and in good faith and abandoned the intention to commit the crime." This can apply even if you had already gone far enough to be guilty of an attempt.

But there's a major limit: backing out doesn't count if you only stopped because you were about to get caught. Minnesota courts have held that refraining because of intervening circumstances — like the arrival of police — is not voluntary abandonment.

What this means for you: A genuine change of heart can be a real defense. Stopping because the plan fell apart or police showed up generally is not.

Key Terms

• Attempt: Intending to commit a crime and taking a substantial step toward it, without completing it.
• Substantial step: An act that is more than preparation and shows real commitment to committing the crime.
• Specific intent: The intent to commit the particular crime charged (required for attempted homicide, for example).
• Factual impossibility: The crime couldn't be completed because of unknown facts — not a defense in Minnesota.
• Voluntary abandonment: Genuinely and willingly giving up the crime — a defense, unless you stopped only to avoid getting caught.