State v. Lail, 937 N.W.2d 558

Alexander Lail and his wife Donna separated after filing for divorce; Lail continued operating their business, Central Plains Restoration.
Lail solicited Michael Kanwischer and Jason Saxer to kill Donna and former employee Tyler Schnase, offering Kanwischer $35,000 for Donna and $20,000 for Schnase and discussing methods (using gas lines to blow up or burn their homes).
Lail showed Kanwischer and Saxer where Schnase and Donna lived (Kanwischer knew Donna’s house from local familiarity), repeatedly discussed plans, and neither intermediary definitively refused or carried out the killings.
Lail attached a GPS tracker to Donna’s vehicle; investigators recovered tracking logs and a notebook with tracking info; Lail was observed near Schnase’s home on multiple occasions.
Lail was arrested and convicted by a jury of two counts of attempted murder; he appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of a "substantial step" toward murder.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to show Lail took a substantial step toward intentional or knowing murder (attempt)	The State: solicitation combined with concrete steps (offers of payment, showing locations, formulating plan, GPS tracking, surveillance) corroborated intent and amounted to a substantial step	Lail: conduct was mere preparation/solicitation without completed plans, no payment, and intermediaries never acted — insufficient to constitute a substantial step	Affirmed — jury could reasonably infer substantial step from the totality of acts and corroborative conduct; evidence sufficient for attempted murder convictions

State v. Rai, 924 N.W.2d 410 (N.D. 2019) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
State v. Keller, 695 N.W.2d 703 (N.D. 2005) (defines attempted murder and substantial-step requirement)
State v. Stensaker, 725 N.W.2d 883 (N.D. 2007) (substantial-step is factual question; prevents conviction on mere declarations)
United States v. Martinez, 775 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1985) (substantial step is more than preparation but may be less than the last act)
State v. Daniel B., 201 A.3d 989 (Conn. 2019) (solicitation plus detailed planning and logistical assistance can constitute a substantial step)
State v. Urcinoli, 729 A.2d 507 (N.J. 1999) (providing funds, descriptions, and operational details supports attempt conviction)
State v. Molasky, 765 S.W.2d 597 (Mo. 1989) (solicitation alone, without corroborative acts, may be insufficient to show a substantial step)