Defendant, found guilty by a jury of attempted second degree burglary, appeals from a judgment and sentence. He makes two contentions:
First: the evidence clearly demonstrates that the crime of burglary in the second degree, as distinguished from the charge of attempted second degree burglary, had been proved; and that “failure to consummate the crime intended” is an essential element of the crime of attempt, pursuant to RCW 9.01.070; and
Second: RCW 9.01.070 is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Cоnstitution.
The crime of attempt to commit a crime is defined by RCW 9.01.070:
“An act done with intent to commit a crime, and tending but failing to accomplish it, is an attеmpt to commit that crime; and every person who attempts to commit a crime, unless otherwise prescribed by statute, shall be punished as follows:
“(1) . . .
“(2) . . . a person may be convicted of an attеmpt to commit a crime, although it appears on the trial that the crime was consummated, . . .” (Italics ours.)
In view of the statute, there is no justification to restrict the usual meaning of the word “attempt” and limit it to that whiсh is usually described by the words “unsuccessful attempt.” Attempts cover bоth successful and unsuccessful endeavors or efforts.
Further, RCW 10.61.010 provides:
“Upon the triаl of an indictment or information, the defendant may be convicted of the crime charged therein, or of a lesser degree of the same crime, or of an attempt to commit the crime so charged, or of an attempt to commit a lesser dеgree of the same crime. . . .” (Italics ours.)
Thus, an attempt to commit a crime is specifically defined as an offense included in the crime itself.
State v. Arnold,
In State
v. Bigger,
34 Wn. (2d) 69,
B. RCW 9.01.070 (a portion of which is quoted supra) provides in part:
. . a person may be convicted of an аttempt to commit a crime, although it appears on the trial that the crime was consummated, unless the court in its discretion shall discharge the jury and direct the defendant to he tried for the crime itsеlf.” (Italics ours.)
Defendant urges that the italicized portion of RCW 9.01.070, supra, violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment tо the United States Constitution because it vests discretion in the trial judge tо permit conviction of attempt, or to direct trial for the crime itself.
We do not reach this problem for the trial court did not disсharge the jury and direct that defendant be tried for the crime of second degree burglary.
A person may not urge the unconstitutionality оf a statute unless he is harmfully affected by the particular featurе of the statute alleged to be violative of the constitution. Onе who challenges the constitutionality of a statute must claim infringement of an interest particular and personal to himself, as distinguished frоm a cause of dissatisfaction with the general framework of the statute.
State v. Lundquist, ante
p. 397, 401,
The judgment is affirmed.
Finley, C. J., Hill, Rosellini, and Foster, JJ., concur.