## Facts

- Vermont game wardens received complaints of illegal deer hunting out of season and placed a lifelike deer decoy about 83 feet from a road, with reflective tape on its eyes to simulate a live deer.
- During the closed season, Benny Curtis drove by in a truck, shined a bright light toward the decoy, and fired a rifle shot that damaged one of the decoy’s eyes.
- Curtis was charged with attempting to take a wild deer out of season under Vermont law (10 V.S.A. § 4745) and was convicted by a jury of attempt.
- Curtis appealed, arguing (1) he could not be guilty of attempt because the object was a decoy, (2) the jury should have been instructed on entrapment, and (3) the wardens’ conduct violated internal Fish and Wildlife guidelines.

## Issues

1. Whether “legal impossibility” precludes attempt liability when the defendant shoots at a deer decoy believing it to be a live deer during closed season.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by not instructing the jury on entrapment.
3. Whether alleged violations of Fish and Wildlife Department decoy-use guidelines invalidate the conviction.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that legal impossibility did not bar attempt liability where the defendant intended to take a deer out of season and took substantial steps toward that result, even though the target was a decoy.
- The court held the entrapment-instruction claim was waived because Curtis did not request the instruction or timely object to the charge.
- The court held that any deviation from internal agency guidelines did not affect the validity of the criminal conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Attempt liability may be established by culpable intent plus conduct constituting a substantial step toward commission of the offense.
- A defendant’s mistaken belief about circumstances (that would make the conduct criminal if true) does not defeat attempt liability merely because completion was impossible due to unknown facts (e.g., a decoy).
- Claims of instructional error generally must be preserved by requesting the instruction and timely objecting to the jury charge.
- Internal law-enforcement or agency guidelines do not, without more, create enforceable limits that invalidate an otherwise lawful prosecution and conviction.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Curtis’s conviction for attempted out-of-season deer taking, rejecting legal impossibility where Curtis believed he was shooting a live deer and acted toward that end; it also refused to consider entrapment due to lack of preservation and found alleged guideline violations irrelevant to the conviction’s validity.


State v. Curtis, 157 Vt. 629, 603 A.2d 356 (1991)