Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): whether Appellant possessed a specific intent to kill the victim. Again, although not controlling, the Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Criminal Jury Instructions offer a nearly identical instruction concerning the use of facts to infer a specific intent to kill. Pennsyl vania Suggested Standard Criminal Jury Instructions, § 15.2502(A)(5). Appellant’s argument that our judicial system condemns the use of inferences for evaluating the degree of homicide is incorrect. Furthermore, contrary to Appellant’s impression, we find nothing in the instruction of the trial court that the jurors could have interpreted as requiring them to draw an inference. See Commonwealth v. Karenbauer, 552 Pa. 420, 715 A.2d 1086, 1098 (1998), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 1258, 143 L.Ed.2d 354 (1999) (<HOLDING>). The trial court did not tell the jury that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding good faith jury instruction is not necessary when the court has given an adequate specific intent instruction (B) holding that fact finder may draw reasonable inferences from evidence and choose which inference is most reasonable (C) holding that instruction on inference of specific intent to kill did not usurp jurys role as fact finder (D) holding good faith jury instruction unnecessary when court gave adequate specific intent instruction (E) holding that there was no error where one instruction did not inform the jury that in order to convict defendant of attempted murder the evidence must show that defendant had a specific intent to commit murder but where subsequent instruction did inform jury of this requirement and concluding that the instructions when read as a whole adequately informed the jury of the requirement of specific intent to kill
Output (English): holding that fact finder may draw reasonable inferences from evidence and choose which inference is most reasonable