## Facts

- Will Stokes had an adulterous relationship with Cora Lane, who was married to Wallace Lane.
- Stokes and Cora agreed that Wallace Lane should be killed.
- They arranged for a third party, “Shorty” Robertson, to ambush and shoot Wallace Lane as he returned home at night along a customary route.
- Robertson reported the plan to law enforcement, who set up surveillance near the intended ambush site.
- Stokes accompanied Robertson to the location and handed Robertson a loaded gun intended for the killing.
- Police intervened and arrested Stokes before any shooting occurred.
- No payment had yet been made to Robertson for the planned killing.
- On the planned night, Wallace Lane did not travel the expected route and never came within range.

## Issues

1. Whether Stokes’s conduct constituted an attempt to commit murder, rather than mere preparation, where he arranged for a killing, went to the ambush site, and delivered a loaded firearm to the would-be killer.
2. Whether factual impossibility (the victim’s failure to appear) negates liability for attempted murder.
3. Whether the absence of payment to the hired killer prevents an attempt conviction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the conviction for attempted murder.
- The court held that Stokes’s actions went beyond preparation and were sufficiently proximate to the intended homicide.
- The court rejected factual impossibility as a defense where the defendant acted with intent to kill and took direct steps toward completion.
- The court treated nonpayment as immaterial given the agreement and the overt acts at the scene.

## Legal Principles

- An attempt requires specific intent to commit the target offense plus overt acts directly connected to its commission that go beyond mere preparation.
- Completion of the crime is not required; failure due to external circumstances does not defeat attempt liability once the defendant’s conduct reaches dangerous proximity to the offense.
- Factual impossibility (e.g., the intended victim does not appear) is not a defense to attempt when the defendant intends the crime and proceeds as if completion is possible.
- Liability for attempt does not depend on finishing incidental aspects of the plan (such as paying consideration) when substantial execution steps have been taken.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Stokes’s attempted-murder conviction because his agreement to have Wallace Lane killed, his presence at the planned ambush site, and his delivery of a loaded gun to the intended shooter constituted an attempt; the victim’s nonappearance and the lack of payment did not bar liability.


Stokes v. State, 92 Miss. 415, 46 So. 627 (Miss. 1908)