The Impossibility Defense in Minnesota (Attempt Crimes)

Attempt: Intent Plus a Substantial Step

An attempt generally requires the intent to commit a specific crime plus a substantial step toward committing it. Because attempt punishes the intent and the dangerous conduct, the law often does not care that some outside circumstance made completion impossible.

Factual Impossibility: Generally Not a Defense

Factual impossibility means the crime couldn't be completed because of a fact the defendant didn't know. Classic examples: trying to buy drugs that turn out to be fake, picking an empty pocket, or attempting an offense against a target who isn't who the defendant thought. Factual impossibility is generally not a defense to attempt. The defendant intended the crime and did everything they believed necessary; the failure was due to circumstances beyond their knowledge.

What this means for you: "It never could have worked" usually won't defeat an attempt charge if you intended the crime and took real steps toward it. Sting operations rely heavily on this principle.

The Inherent-Impossibility Exception

There is a narrow exception for conduct that is inherently incapable of producing a crime — methods so far-fetched that no real risk of the offense ever existed (the textbook example is trying to harm someone with a method that could never work, like a harmless folk "curse"). Where the means were inherently impossible, an attempt charge may not stand. This exception is narrow and rarely applies in practice.

Legal Impossibility

Legal impossibility — where the act the defendant completed simply is not a crime at all, even if they believed it was — is conceptually different. You cannot attempt to commit something that is not actually a crime. Courts have often blurred the line between factual and legal impossibility, and the analysis can be technical. What matters is whether, under the facts as the defendant believed them, the intended conduct would have been a crime.

What this means for you: The label ("factual" vs. "legal" impossibility) often decides the outcome, and the distinction is one of the trickier areas of criminal law. It deserves careful analysis rather than a gut reaction.

Why This Matters in Sting and Undercover Cases

Impossibility issues surface constantly in undercover operations — drug buys, solicitation, online stings, and trafficking cases — where the "victim" is an officer or the contraband is simulated. Defendants often assume that "there were never any real drugs" or "there was no real child" is a defense. Usually it is not, because of the factual-impossibility rule. The stronger challenges in these cases tend to involve entrapment, intent, identity, or the sufficiency of the "substantial step," not impossibility.