## Facts

- Robert Gerald Skipper was an inmate in a Pennsylvania county prison.
- Skipper asked another inmate, who participated in a day-release work program, to obtain hacksaw blades in exchange for $150.
- The day-release inmate obtained several hacksaw blades and smuggled them into the prison concealed in loaves of bread.
- After the blades were delivered, Skipper gave the intermediary inmate a note authorizing another prisoner to pay the $150.
- Prison officials intercepted the note and then conducted a shakedown search.
- Two hacksaw blades were found hidden in Skipper’s cell.
- Skipper was charged as a principal with attempted prison breach and was convicted by a jury; the trial court instructed on attempt using the then-accepted Pennsylvania definition.

## Issues

1. Whether procuring hacksaw blades, arranging payment, and concealing the blades in a cell constitutes a criminal attempt to commit prison breach under Pennsylvania law, as opposed to noncriminal preparation.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the judgment of sentence.
- The court held the evidence was legally insufficient to prove an “attempt” under Pennsylvania’s proximity-based attempt doctrine.
- The court concluded Skipper’s conduct remained preparatory; at most, it suggested conduct consistent with being an accessory before the fact if a prison breach had actually occurred.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal attempt requires an overt act done with intent to commit a specific offense that tends toward completion but falls short of accomplishment.
- The overt act must be sufficiently proximate to the intended crime to be part of the natural sequence of acts required for the crime’s execution.
- Acts confined to preparation, which may still be abandoned before a legally cognizable transgression, do not constitute an attempt.
- Preparatory conduct may evidence intent and planning, but without a direct move toward the physical commission of prison breach (beyond obtaining tools), attempt liability is not established under a strict proximity approach.

## Conclusion

Because Skipper’s actions amounted to planning and acquisition of tools without commencing conduct that directly effected a prison breach, the conviction for attempted prison breach could not stand under Pennsylvania’s proximity requirement for attempt.


Commonwealth v. Skipper, 294 A.2d 780 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1972)