Essay on The Crime that Never Was
Often judges face a dilemma, when they have to identify clearly whether there was an attempt of a crime or not. In this respect, it is possible to refer to the case of Oviedo, who was convicted of crime by the lower court for the attempt of selling heroin, while the court of appeals discharged this decision. In fact, both decisions are reasonable but they depend on the context in which they are applied. To put it more precisely, the decision of the lower court is grounded on the Oviedo’s belief that he was selling heroin and it is just because of the circumstances of the case that the substance turned out to be a substitute of heroin but not heroin. Therefore, the lower court judge believed that Oviedo was unaware that the substance was a substitute of heroin and he sold as heroin. In contrast, the court of appeals’ ruling is grounded on the fact that Oviedo was conscious of the nature of substance he was selling and he was just trying to reap off some money from the agent under cover. Remarkably, in both court ruling, the decision was taken on the ground of the attitude of the accused to his actions and his beliefs. In such a situation, it is extremely difficult to prove that what the offender actually believed in at the moment, when the crime or the attempt of the crime was committed. Hence, there is a high risk of subjectivity of court ruling in such cases. Nevertheless, in case of Oviedo, the decision of the lower court was basically right, taking into consideration the fact that Oviedo was unaware of the fact that the substance he sold was not heroin but its substitute, which was not legally banned, otherwise, he would not hide the substance in his TV set but he would rather keep it opens as the substance was absolutely safe for him in legal terms.
On analyzing the case, of Oviedo, it is possible to refer to other cases, which have similar issues and ground. For instance, it is possible to refer to the case of Alice stabbing her husband, even though he has been already dead for twenty minutes. Alice was unaware of the fact that her husband had been already dead. Instead, she stabbed him and she was conscious of the fact that she was committing a crime. This is why she is definitely guilty of the attempt of the homicide.
In this regard, the case of Oviedo is similar to the case of Alice because he was also convinced in the fact that the substance he sold was heroin. But the court of appeal grounded its decision on the fact that Oviedo knew that the substance he was going to sell was not heroin but its substitute. The case of Oviedo is different. His goal was not the distribution of heroin but earning money. Therefore, he did not use the real heroin but its substitute to deceive the agent. It is just as if Alice just pretended to murder her husband, instead of stabbing him. Oviedo was conscious of the fact that he was distributing a substitute of heroin but not heroin.
At this point, the original decision of the court was grounded on the fact that Oviedo was unaware of the fact that he was selling substitute of heroin. Instead, the lower court’s ruling was grounded on the belief of the court that Oviedo was selling substitute believing that it was real heroin.
In this respect, the case of Oviedo is similar to the case of John, who was attempting to smuggle the French lace, although it turned out to be fake. In fact, John did believe that he was smuggling and he was conscious of the fact that he was committing an illegal act but, nonetheless, he did the illegal, as he thought, act and it is only because of circumstances that the lace turned out to be fake.
Also, the case of Oviedo is similar to the case, when John sold fireworks to Henry. In fact, actions of Oviedo could be not treated as crime, even when he was not conscious of the fact that he was selling a substitute of heroin. Similarly, John sold the firework in the state, where such sale was legal and he did not commit the crime, although he believed that he was committing one. Similarly, Oviedo believed that he was committing crime, although the substance he sold was not illegal. In such a way, both John and Oviedo believed they were committing crimes and they had never stopped the actions, which they believed to be illegal. Therefore, their actions should be interpreted as the attempt of the respective crime, i.e. the attempt of the illegal sale of the firework in case of John and the attempt of the sale of heroin in case of Oviedo.
However, the case of John and Oveido are not absolutely identical. If John sold firework in the state, where such sale was legal, than Oviedo believed he was selling heroin that was illegal anyway, anywhere, while state legislation differs in relation to the attempt of such sale. Therefore, the subject of the John’s case is the place, where he sold firework, than the subject of the Oviedo’s case was the substance he was trying to sell.
In addition, it is possible to refer to the Aborted Abortion Attempt case, which may be also extrapolated on the case of Oviedo. To put it more precisely, in case of the aborted abortion attempt, a man agreed to conduct the abortion, although the woman was the agent under cover and she was not pregnant. Obviously, the man would conduct abortion if she was pregnant and he just used the fact that she was not pregnant as a pretext to appeal to the court of appeals. In this regard, Oviedo actually did use the same pretext to appeal to the court of appeals. In fact, he learned that the substance he was trying to sell was not heroin but its substitute, which is not legally banned. Therefore, Oviedo used the same strategy as the man in case of the aborted abortion attempt. However, it is obvious that both the man in the aborted abortion attempt case and Oviedo believed they were committing the crime and they agreed to commit them to earn money. In such a context, arguments of Oviedo that he was just trying to cheat the agent under cover to earn money are inconsistent as he believed that he was selling heroin. The fact that the substance turned to be a substitute of heroin, which was not banned, does not change the actions of Oviedo and his actions should be qualified as the attempt of heroin sale just like the man in the case of aborted abortion attempt was attempted to conduct the abortion.
In such a way, different cases raise different issues but the lower court ruling in case of Oviedo, being quite complex, still should not be revised by the court of appeal. At any rate, if I were a judge, I would definitely supported the lower court ruling. Obviously, Oviedo was unaware of the fact that he was selling substance other than heroin. He believed that he was selling heroin and that did not stop him. In this regard, his argument that he knew that he sold substitute of heroin that was not legally banned are inconsistent. If he knew that the substance was not heroin, he would not hide it thoroughly in his TV set. In contrast, he would store it safely, being certain that the substance is legal and he was not vulnerable for any legal liability. However, Oviedo hided the substance believing that he was committing a crime because he believed that the substance was heroin.
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that Oviedo was guilty of the attempt of heroin sale. He was aware of his illegal actions and he believed that he was selling heroin.
