People v. Lipscomb-Bey

Evidence was insufficient to show a substantial step for crimes of being an attempted armed habitual criminal. State was required to show that Defendant took a substantial step toward receiving, selling, possessing, or transferring a firearm, but evidence showed only that Defendant showed up only to negotiate terms of a sale, that there was no meeting of the minds, and that a separate encounter would have been necessary to transfer the gun. Though evidence showed Defendant's intent to sell a gun, Defendant did not possess a gun, and many essential steps remained toward commission of offense. (JORGENSEN and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)