## Facts

- Police conducted a sting operation using an informant wired with a recording device.
- Police supplied the informant with five specially coated gold chains that were in lawful police custody and not actually stolen.
- The informant entered Samuel Henley’s jewelry store and offered to sell the chains, explicitly representing that they were stolen.
- Henley agreed to buy the chains for $30, took possession of them, and indicated willingness to buy more “stolen goods.”
- Police arrested Henley shortly after the transaction and recovered the money and recording through the informant’s meeting with a detective.
- Henley was charged and later proceeded on an attempt theory under Pennsylvania’s attempt statute, based on his belief that he was receiving stolen property.

## Issues

1. Whether “legal impossibility” remains a defense to criminal attempt under 18 Pa.C.S. § 901 when the defendant believes property is stolen but it is not.
2. Whether purchasing property represented as stolen, coupled with taking possession and paying for it, constitutes a “substantial step” toward theft by receiving stolen property under § 901.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that legal impossibility is not a defense to attempt under 18 Pa.C.S. § 901.
- The court ruled that a defendant may be convicted of attempted theft by receiving stolen property if he intends to receive stolen property and takes a substantial step toward that end, even if the goods are not actually stolen.
- The court affirmed the order reversing the trial court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 901(a), attempt requires intent to commit a specific crime and an act constituting a substantial step toward its commission.
- Under § 901(b), attempt liability is not defeated solely because commission was factually or legally impossible, so long as the crime could have been committed had circumstances been as the actor believed.
- The attempt analysis focuses on the actor’s criminal purpose and conduct, not on whether completion was possible under the true facts.
- Agreeing to buy goods believed to be stolen, paying for them, and taking possession can constitute a substantial step beyond mere preparation.

## Conclusion

Pennsylvania’s attempt statute eliminates legal impossibility as a defense where the defendant’s intent is criminal and his conduct constitutes a substantial step, even though the “stolen” status of the goods is only as the defendant believed and not true in fact.


Commonwealth v. Henley, 474 A.2d 1115 (Pa. 1984)