## Facts

- Charles Orndorff was charged with attempted grand theft arising from a confidence scheme known as the “Jamaica Switch.”
- Juniper Griffis was approached on a Long Beach street by a man posing as a sailor who displayed a roll of cash and claimed it was $19,000 in insurance proceeds.
- The sailor stated he would not deposit the money because he believed a bank would not let him withdraw funds if he deposited them.
- Orndorff entered the conversation and was asked by Griffis to help “straighten out” the sailor’s concerns about banking.
- Griffis, Orndorff, and the sailor drove in Orndorff’s car to Griffis’s home so Griffis could get his bank book, intending to demonstrate that withdrawals were possible.
- They then drove to Griffis’s bank area; the sailor stayed in the car while Griffis and Orndorff walked toward the bank.
- Before reaching the bank, Orndorff told Griffis to proceed alone while he stayed behind to “watch the sailor.”
- Griffis went inside the bank, met his wife, and after speaking with bank personnel, left to find Orndorff, the sailor, and Orndorff’s car gone.
- Police later searched Orndorff’s home with consent and found a roll of “play money,” which was introduced at trial.
- Orndorff admitted limited involvement but claimed he recognized the scheme and withdrew before it progressed further because he was on parole.
- A police expert described the Jamaica Switch as a scheme in which a confederate induces the victim to withdraw cash and then swaps the real money for worthless play money.

## Issues

1. Whether Orndorff’s conduct went beyond mere preparation and constituted a direct act sufficient for attempted grand theft.
2. Whether noncompletion of the theft was due to external circumstances (supporting attempt liability) or Orndorff’s voluntary withdrawal at an early stage.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of conviction for attempted grand theft.
- The court held that Orndorff’s actions were too remote from the completed offense and left too many steps remaining to qualify as an attempt.
- The court treated the failure to complete the offense as attributable to Orndorff’s own decision to desist rather than external frustration of an already-begun attempt.

## Legal Principles

- Attempt requires an act that goes beyond mere preparation and constitutes a direct, unequivocal step toward commission of the target offense.
- Conduct that remains preparatory and leaves substantial intervening steps before completion is insufficient to establish attempt.
- For attempt liability under the court’s approach, noncompletion must result from extraneous circumstances rather than the defendant’s voluntary withdrawal before the crime has reached the attempt stage.

## Conclusion

Because the victim never withdrew or delivered money and the planned exchange of cash for play money never commenced, Orndorff’s conduct was only preparatory and too remote to constitute attempted grand theft; the conviction was therefore reversed.


People v. Orndorff, 261 Cal. App. 2d 212, 67 Cal. Rptr. 824 (Ct. App. 1968)