## Facts

- George McCloskey was an inmate at Luzerne County Prison serving a sentence for larceny and assigned to the overnight boiler-room shift near the recreation yard.
- Around 12:15 a.m., a prison alarm indicated an attempted escape in the recreation area; guards responded and searched the area.
- Guards found barbed wire that had been cut and a laundry bag containing civilian clothing; the bag was traceable to McCloskey by its identifying mark.
- McCloskey had scaled an inner fence into the recreation yard within the prison walls but did not breach the outer perimeter or leave the prison grounds.
- Around 5:15 a.m., McCloskey voluntarily approached a guard supervisor and admitted he had planned to escape but changed his mind and returned to his work assignment.
- At trial, McCloskey testified consistently, stating he reconsidered in the yard and decided not to proceed.

## Issues

1. Whether McCloskey’s conduct (cutting barbed wire, assembling civilian clothes, and entering the recreation yard) constituted an overt act sufficiently proximate to the completed offense of prison breach to support a conviction for criminal attempt.
2. Whether McCloskey’s voluntary abandonment before leaving the prison confines precluded attempt liability or otherwise confirmed that the attempt threshold was not met.

## Decision

- The Superior Court reversed the judgment of sentence and directed entry of judgment of acquittal.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to prove attempted prison breach because McCloskey’s conduct did not go beyond preparation and was not in dangerous proximity to a completed escape.
- The court treated McCloskey’s voluntary desist and return to his assignment as reinforcing that the conduct had not matured into a criminal attempt.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal attempt requires an overt act done with specific intent that tends toward commission of the crime and is sufficiently close to completion to move beyond preparation.
- Courts distinguish preparation from attempt by assessing proximity to consummation and whether the defendant still had a substantial opportunity to desist before the protected legal interest was threatened.
- Voluntary abandonment may be relevant to whether the defendant’s acts ever crossed the line into attempt; abandonment can support a finding of insufficiency where the conduct remains preparatory.

## Conclusion

Because McCloskey’s actions did not reach the level of an overt act in dangerous proximity to an actual prison breach, and he voluntarily stopped while still within the prison walls, the evidence did not support attempt liability and his conviction was reversed with acquittal ordered.


Commonwealth v. McCloskey, 234 Pa. Super. 577, 341 A.2d 500 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1975)