Opinion ID: 2282838
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: first countattempted murder

Text: In its specific instruction on the crime of attempted murder, the trial court properly told the jury that one of the elements of the crime that the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt was that the defendant had the specific intent to commit murder. The jury was told that in considering the question of the defendant's intent no one can look into a man's mind and see what his intention is. The only way to decide that question is to infer from the accused's conduct in the light of the surrounding circumstances. At this point, the trial court repeated its erroneous instruction as previously stated, that every person is conclusively presumed to intend the natural and necessary consequences of his act. (Emphasis added.) While the trial court later somewhat undercut its conclusive language by telling the jury [i]f you believe [the victim's] version as to the defendant's conduct at the bridge, you may presume he intended what would be the natural and necessary consequences of his actions, this language cannot overcome the express conclusive presumption repeated in the instructions on this count. (Emphasis added.) Because the instructions on the first count contained the express language previously found offensive under Sandstrom, the defendant's conviction on this count must be reversed.