State v. Daniel B.

Summary

Justice Ecker dissented from the conclusion that the evidence supported the defendant's attempted-murder conviction. The dissent would have held that the defendant's conversations with two prospective hitmen, provision of identifying information, and related preliminary planning did not constitute a substantial step strongly corroborative of criminal purpose. The dissent emphasizes the distinction between solicitation and attempt and the need for more than conversation or preparation. Justice Ecker, dissenting, would have reversed the Appellate Court's judgment.