Opinion ID: 2654645
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Logical Impossibility of the Conviction

Text: [¶32] Noel next contends that, even if this Court accepts the validity of his plea agreement and his guilty pleas, the law itself demands that his pleas be set aside as a logical impossibility. More specifically, Noel claims that attempted voluntary manslaughter is an impossible crime and he could not consciously “attempt” to commit a crime when he merely reacted in confused panic to the intense pain inflicted by the Taser.
14 [¶33] The argument lodged by Noel that it is “logically impossible” for a person to specifically intend to commit a form of murder which does not require specific intent to kill presents an issue of law that this Court reviews de novo. See Worcester v. State, 2001 WY 82, ¶ 13, 30 P.3d 47, 52 (Wyo. 2001). B. Consideration of Attempted Voluntary Manslaughter as a Logical Possibility [¶34] Wyoming precedent controls this issue, establishing a long history of this State’s recognition of attempted voluntary manslaughter as a logically and legally possible crime. See Landeroz v. State¸ 2011 WY 168, ¶¶ 19, 267 P.3d 1075, 1080 (Wyo. 2011); Meyers v. State, 2007 WY 118, ¶¶ 1-3, 164 P.3d 544, 545 (Wyo. 2007); Hernandez v. State, 2007 WY 105, ¶¶ 45-47, 162 P.3d 472, 482-83 (Wyo. 2007); Mattern v. State, 2007 WY 24, ¶¶ 32-36, 151 P.3d 1116, 1130-31 (Wyo. 2007); Maes, ¶ 1, 114 P.3d at 709 (Wyo. 2005); Reilly v. State, 2002 WY 156, 55 P.3d 1295 (Wyo. 2002) (rejecting the notion that the general intent crime of second degree murder is compatible with the specific intent required for attempt);6 Stout v. State, 2001 WY 114, ¶ 3, 35 P.3d 1198, 1200 (Wyo. 2001); Bilderback v. State, 13 P.3d 249, 251-52 (Wyo. 2000); Knox v. State, 848 P.2d 1354, 1356 (Wyo. 1993); Sanchez v. State, 841 P.2d 85, 89 (Wyo. 1992); Warren v. State, 809 P.2d 788 (Wyo. 1991) (recognizing the crime of attempted voluntary manslaughter); Stice v. State, 799 P.2d 1204, 1205 (Wyo. 1990); Best v. State, 736 P.2d 739, 747 (Wyo. 1987); Shepard v. State, 720 P.2d 904, 905 (Wyo. 1986). [¶35] In addressing a comparable analysis, this Court stated: Appellant contends that the elements of an attempt and second-degree murder are mutually exclusive and/or logically impossible, because an attempt requires that one act with a specific intent, while second-degree murder only requires that one act with a general intent. . . . Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-301 states, in pertinent part: (a) A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if: (i) With the intent to commit the crime, he does any act which is a substantial step towards commission of the crime. A “substantial step” is conduct which is strongly 6 In Reilly, this Court concluded that “Wyoming is not a jurisdiction that finds it ‘logically impossible’ to attempt a general intent crime.” Id., ¶ 10, p. 1263. 15 corroborative of the firmness of the person's intention to complete the commission of the crime[.] According to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-104, “[w]hoever purposely and maliciously, but without premeditation, kills any human being is guilty of murder in the second degree. . . .” Appellant’s claimed “logical impossibility” arises from the “intent” elements of these respective statutes. In the past, crimes have commonly been categorized by whether they require a “specific intent” or a “general intent.” For many years, Wyoming had several pattern jury instructions defining and explaining the two terms, and yet, the differences between the concepts were not always readily discernible. Realizing that the distinction between a specific intent crime and a general intent crime is apparently troublesome, we can perhaps clarify it by stating it in a somewhat different way. When the statute sets out the offense with only a description of the particular unlawful act, without reference to intent to do a further act or achieve a future consequence, the trial judge asks the jury whether the defendant intended to do the outlawed act. Such intention is general intent. When the statutory definition of the crime refers to an intent to do some further act or attain some additional consequence, the offense is considered to be a specific intent crime and then that question must be asked of the jury. Dorador v. State, 573 P.2d 839, 843 (Wyo. 1978). Following that logic, an “attempt” is a “specific intent” crime in that the attempt statute requires that one act with the intent to commit the object crime. On the other hand, we have held that second-degree murder is a general intent crime, because it requires proof only that the act was done voluntarily or deliberately, not that there was a specific intent to kill. Bouwkamp v. State, 833 P.2d 486, 493 (Wyo. 1992); Ramos v. State, 806 P.2d 822, 830 (Wyo. 1991). .... Our precedent reveals that Wyoming is not a jurisdiction that finds it “logically impossible” to attempt a general 16 intent crime. In several opinions, we have affirmed attempted second-degree murder convictions. See, e.g., Bilderback v. State, 13 P.3d 249 (Wyo. 2000); Gabriel v. State, 925 P.2d 234 (Wyo. 1996); and Dichard v. State, 844 P.2d 484 (Wyo. 1992). We have also previously recognized the crime of attempted voluntary manslaughter. Warren v. State, 809 P.2d 788 (Wyo. 1991). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2- 105(a) (LexisNexis 2001) provides, in pertinent part: A person is guilty of manslaughter if he unlawfully kills any human being without malice, expressed or implied, either:
In Warren, 809 P.2d at 790, Warren challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him of attempted voluntary manslaughter, arguing that there was no evidence of an attempt to kill. After stating the substantive elements of attempted voluntary manslaughter, this Court proceeded to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence as to those elements, primarily the evidence supporting Warren’s “attempt” to kill his victim and the accompanying inference regarding Warren's intent. Id. We concluded that the reasonable inference from the evidence presented was that “Warren attempted to kill [his victim], and a jury could so find beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. In the context of appellant’s claimed “logical impossibility,” particularly the intent element of an attempt versus that of an underlying general intent crime, attempted second-degree murder is indistinguishable from attempted voluntary manslaughter. Indeed, voluntary manslaughter is a “lesser included offense of the crime of second degree murder,” and is “a general intent crime that does not require a deliberate intent to kill.” State v. Keffer, 860 P.2d 1118, 1138-39 (Wyo. 1993). .... Nothing about the instant case convinces us that we should now find it legally or logically impossible for a person to attempt a general intent crime. As we said in Compton, 931 P.2d at 940, 941 (quoting People v. Frysig, 628 P.2d 1004, 1007 n. 4, 1008 (Colo. 1981)), the question 17 presented to the jury in an attempt case essentially has two levels: (1) whether the person had “ ‘the intent to perform acts which, if completed, would constitute the underlying offense’ ”- in other words, did the person intend the conduct that constitutes the substantial step; and (2) whether the person had the intent necessary as an element of the underlying offense—“ ‘[e]xcept for the intentional conduct constituting the substantial step, the requisite culpability is that provided for in the definition of the [underlying] offense.’ ” That analysis works just as well for attempted crimes that traditionally have been categorized as general intent crimes as it does for attempted crimes that traditionally have been categorized as specific intent crimes. Id., ¶¶ 6-12; 55 P.3d at 1261-63 (footnote omitted). Bloomfield v. State, 2010 WY 97, ¶ 13, 234 P.3d 366, 371-73 (Wyo. 2010) (emphasis added). [¶36] Noel seeks to distinguish this precedent, asserting that the issue herein is different, in that it involves the particular form of “voluntary manslaughter.” What Noel’s argument really boils down to is his assertion that the district court should have concluded that Noel lacked intent, thereby invalidating any guilty plea for either Noel’s original charges or his amended charges. However the court was under no obligation to draw such a conclusion, particularly in light of the totality of evidence presented to it, nor has Noel provided this Court with legal or factual support to deviate from its precedent. The Court declines to accept his invitation to do so.