Opinion ID: 853534
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Jury Instructions on Attempted Murder

Text: Williams contends the trial court improperly rendered jury instructions on attempted murder. The final instructions, in relevant part, read: A person attempts to commit a crime when, acting with the culpability required for commission of the crime, he engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of the crime. .... To convict the defendant, the State must have proved each of the following elements: The Defendant, Mike M. Williams: 1. acting with the specific intent to commit the crime of Murder by knowingly or intentionally killing another human being[,] 2. did discharge a firearm numerous times at or against the person or presence of said David Kissinger, 3. which was conduct constituting a substantial step toward the commission of the intended crime of Murder. (R. at 83.) Although one may be guilty of murder under our statute without entertaining a specific intent to kill the victim, he cannot be guilty of attempted murder without entertaining such intent. Spradlin v. State, 569 N.E.2d 948 (Ind.1991). Jury instructions setting forth elements of attempted murder must inform the jury that the State is required to prove that the defendant, with intent to kill the victim, engaged in conduct that was a substantial step toward killing. Blanche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 709 (Ind.1998). Parsed to its relevant provisions, the instruction at issue states: Williams acting with the specific intent to commit the crime of Murder by knowingly or intentionally killing another human being... which was conduct constituting a substantial step toward the commission of the intended crime of Murder. [3] (R. at 83) (emphasis added). Replete as it is with language about intent to murder, counsel in effect argues that the instruction is faulty because it refers to Murder by knowingly or intentionally killing. This is an interesting argument, but one that is not available on appeal. The instruction at issue was given at trial as modified per request of the defense. (R. at 123.) This leaves no issue for appeal. Kingery v. State, 659 N.E.2d 490, 494 (Ind.1995). [4]