Also known as: proximity theories · proximity · neighbour principle
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A common-law test for criminal attempt that requires the defendant's overt acts to come dangerously close to completing the target offense. Mere preparation remains insufficient. The test demands physical and causal proximity so near to consummation that the crime would have occurred but for interruption.
Paula Pierce buys bullets and drives to Paul Peterson's house with the intent to shoot him. She then stands on his porch, points a loaded gun at his chest, and pulls the trigger. The proximity theory is satisfied because her conduct has crossed from preparation into dangerous proximity to the completed offense.
Peter Pratt buys a weapon and drives toward Victor Vale's cabin intending to commit murder. He reaches the porch and raises the gun but is interrupted by police. The proximity theory is satisfied because his overt acts reached dangerous proximity to the completed offense.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Penelope Price loads a weapon and drives to the neighborhood where she plans to rob a store. She parks two blocks away and walks toward the entrance but is stopped before entering. The proximity theory is not met because traveling to the general area remains preparatory conduct that leaves substantial steps undone.
Pauline Price buys ammunition and travels to the victim's residence with intent to kill. She loads the weapon on the front steps but is arrested before firing. The proximity theory is not satisfied because the conduct remained short of dangerous proximity to consummation.
Patrick Price purchases a weapon and drives to the store he intends to rob. He is stopped two blocks away while still carrying the unloaded gun. The proximity theory is not met because the acts constitute mere preparation that leaves substantial steps undone.
Paula Price buys bullets and approaches the victim's home with the loaded gun raised. She is seized on the porch before firing. The proximity theory is satisfied because the overt acts came dangerously close to completing the homicide.
The proximity theory focuses on how close the defendant's overt acts come to completing the offense, requiring dangerous proximity beyond mere preparation. The equivocality approach instead examines whether the acts clearly manifest a criminal purpose without ambiguity. Courts applying proximity theory ask whether the conduct stands so near consummation that the crime would have occurred but for interruption.
Supporting sources
No. Traveling to the general area or driving to the intended victim's house constitutes only preparation under the proximity theory. The overt act must reach dangerous proximity to the completed offense, such as pointing a loaded gun and pulling the trigger.
Supporting sources
Conduct crosses into attempt only when the defendant's overt acts stand in dangerous physical and causal proximity to the completed crime. Acts such as purchasing bullets or driving to the scene remain preparation. Pointing a loaded gun at the victim and pulling the trigger satisfies the test.
Supporting sources
…of the States. Milliken v. Bradley , 418 U. S. 717, 741-742 (1974); Epperson v. Arkansas , 393 U. S. 97, 104 (1968). The proximity to schools, including of course schools owned and operated by the States or their subdivisions, is the very premise for making the conduct criminal. In these circumstances, we have a…