7. If the drug dealer is prosecuted in a common law jurisdiction for attempted possession of cocaine, should he be convicted?

Attempt requires a defendant to have had the intent to do acts, which, if they had been carried out, would have resulted in the commission of a specific crime, along with sufficient acts in furtherance of the crime. The traditional view has been that a defendant cannot be convicted of an attempt to commit a substantive crime unless he performed acts that came very close to the commission of the crime itself. The modern view, codified in the MPC, is that almost any sort of overt act that represents a substantial step towards the offense, and that is strongly corroborative of the defendant's intent to commit the substantive crime, will suffice. See M.P.C. § 5.01(1)(c). The substantial step must be more than mere preparation, but need not constitute actual perpetration, and is determined on a sliding scale depending on the circumstances of each case.

A is correct. The drug dealer and undercover police detective only discussed the cocaine sale and agreed to meet again in 10 days. A court would likely see these acts as mere preparation. Other officers arrested the drug dealer only one hour after he and the undercover officer made their agreement. This would not give the dealer, who said that he needed time to obtain the cocaine, enough time to complete a substantial step that moved beyond mere preparation and closer to the perpetration of the crime of possession of cocaine. Therefore, because the drug dealer had not taken sufficient acts toward the commission of the crime, he should not be convicted.

B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The legality of a defendant's arrest has nothing to do with whether the defendant was guilty of an attempt. The drug dealer only agreed to obtain cocaine within the next 10 days to sell to the undercover police detective, and other officers arrested him only an hour later. Making the agreement does not move beyond mere preparation to complete the crime of possession of cocaine, and the drug dealer was unable to take a substantial step toward the perpetration of that crime before he was arrested. Regardless of the legality of that arrest, he should not be convicted because he did not take sufficient acts toward the commission of the crime.

C is incorrect. Unlike conspiracy, an agreement to commit a crime is neither necessary nor sufficient to constitute an attempt. Here, the drug dealer only agreed to obtain cocaine within the next 10 days to sell to the undercover police detective, and other officers arrested him only an hour later. Even though it is true that by objective standards the undercover detective and the drug dealer had made an agreement that the dealer would obtain cocaine, that is insufficient to constitute a substantial step for purposes of attempt, and cannot be the basis of the dealer's conviction.

D is incorrect. While it may be true that the drug dealer unequivocally expressed his intent to obtain the cocaine, he did not take a substantial step toward the perpetration of that crime and therefore cannot be convicted of attempt.