## Facts

- Derek Evans and Christopher Tinch, along with Jermaine Corbitt, talked about breaking into cars to steal stereo equipment.
- The group possessed items associated with vehicle break-ins, including screwdrivers, pliers, and various car keys.
- Tinch drove the group to a mall parking lot and then to other nearby shopping-center parking lots to look for a car to enter.
- For roughly forty-five minutes, they slowly drove through several parking areas searching for a target vehicle.
- They left the area without exiting their car or entering any vehicle because they believed a pickup truck was following them.
- The pickup truck was driven by an undercover police officer, and officers stopped the defendants’ car shortly after they left.
- Following the stop, officers arrested Evans and Tinch and discovered the tools and keys.
- The State charged Evans and Tinch with criminal attempt to enter an automobile.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found both defendants guilty.
- Evans and Tinch appealed, arguing the evidence showed only preparation and did not prove a “substantial step” toward the offense.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Evans and Tinch performed an act constituting a “substantial step” toward entering an automobile with intent to commit theft, as required for criminal attempt under OCGA § 16-4-1.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the convictions for criminal attempt to enter an automobile.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the court held a rational factfinder could conclude the defendants went beyond mere preparation.
- The court concluded that the combination of (1) expressed intent to steal from cars, (2) possession of break-in tools and keys, and (3) extended, directed searching through multiple parking lots supported a finding of a substantial step.

## Legal Principles

- Under OCGA § 16-4-1, a person commits criminal attempt when, with intent to commit a specific crime, the person performs any act that constitutes a “substantial step” toward committing that crime.
- “Mere preparation” is not enough for attempt liability; however, preparatory conduct can qualify as an attempt depending on the circumstances and how directly it tends toward commission of the crime.
- The attempt inquiry is fact-specific and turns on degree: whether the defendant’s acts, in context, are more than preparation and are directed toward completing the intended offense.
- On appeal, sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed under Jackson v. Virginia: the court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asks whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A factfinder may infer intent and a substantial step from circumstantial evidence such as coordinated planning, possession of tools suited to the intended offense, and conduct aimed at locating a target to carry out the plan.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed Evans’s and Tinch’s convictions for criminal attempt to enter an automobile because their planned car-stereo theft, their possession of tools and keys, and their sustained, targeted search through multiple parking lots allowed a rational factfinder to find they took a substantial step toward the crime rather than engaging in mere preparation.


Evans v. State, 453 S.E.2d 100 (1995)