State of Connecticut v. Daniel B.

Summary

The court held that the substantial-step inquiry under Connecticut's attempt statute focuses primarily on what the defendant has already done, rather than on what remains before completion of the substantive crime. Applying that interpretation and the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard, the court concluded that the defendant's extended efforts to obtain a hit man, provide identifying and logistical information, plan the killing and alibi, and arrange payment were sufficient to support his attempted-murder conviction, even though he had not yet paid. Justice Ecker, dissenting, would have held that the conduct remained solicitation and preliminary preparation rather than a substantial step.