## Facts

- Brown rode with two companions to an alley behind a supermarket after mentioning finding returnable bottles.
- Behind the store was an open-topped enclosure containing many bottles.
- Brown climbed onto the enclosure, looked inside, and asked a companion to climb up and hand out cases of bottles; the companion refused.
- Brown made the same request to the other companion; he also refused.
- The group began walking away; when a police officer drove into the alley, Brown and one companion ran and were arrested.
- No bottles were touched, moved, or removed from the enclosure.

## Issues

1. Whether climbing onto the enclosure and asking others to pass out bottles, without any removal or handling of the bottles, constituted a “substantial step” toward theft under Illinois attempt law.
2. Whether the evidence proved attempted theft beyond a reasonable doubt where no act directly effectuating the taking was shown.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the conviction and set aside the sentence.
- The court held the State failed to prove an overt act constituting a substantial step toward theft.
- The court concluded the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish attempted theft.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal attempt requires intent plus an overt act that goes beyond mere preparation.
- A “substantial step” must place the defendant in dangerous proximity to completing the offense; remote preparatory conduct is insufficient.
- Presence at the scene, looking at the target property, recruiting or soliciting assistance, and flight may support suspicion of intent but do not substitute for an act directed at actual taking or control of the property.

## Conclusion

Brown’s conduct showed preparation and an apparent intent to steal, but because neither he nor anyone else handled or removed any bottles, the State failed to prove a substantial step toward theft, requiring reversal of the attempted theft conviction.


People v. Brown, 75 Ill. App. 3d 503, 394 N.E.2d 63 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979)