Opinion ID: 2074212
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attempted Battery as a Cognizable Offense

Text: The defendant next contends that the offense of which he was found guilty, attempted battery, does not properly exist under Indiana law. Citing Humes v. State (1981), Ind., 426 N.E.2d 379, he argues that the attempt statute, Ind. Code § 35-41-5-1, applies only to specific intent crimes and that language used in Johnson v. State (1982), Ind., 435 N.E.2d 242, 247, states that the offense of battery is not a specific intent crime. The defendant claims that he was therefore convicted of two counts of a non-existent offense. The State acknowledges that prevailing Indiana law applies the attempt statute only to specific intent crimes; that two cases contain language describing battery as not a specific intent crime, Johnson, 435 N.E.2d 242; Norris v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 608, 419 N.E.2d 129, 132; and that a theoretical conflict is thereby presented. Noting the comments of the Criminal Law Study Commission to both the attempt statute and the battery statute, the State urges that we reject the Johnson and Norris references to battery as a general intent crime. Resolution of this problem requires inquiry into the intended meaning and use of the term specific intent. In the analysis and discussion of intent as an element of criminal responsibility, noted authorities have recognized that some crimes require a specified intention in addition to the intentional doing of the conduct constituting the deed of crime, or actus reus, and have used the term specific intent to designate such special additional mental element. R. Perkins, Criminal Law 762 (2d ed. 1969); W. LaFave & A. Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law § 28, at 202 (1972). Professor Perkins provides the following specialized definition: A specific intent, when an element of the mens rea of a particular offense, is some intent other than to do the actus reus thereof which is specifically required for guilt. Perkins, supra, at 762. Common law larceny and common law burglary are cited to illustrate this definition. In addition to the intent to take and carry away the property of another, conviction for larceny required proof of an additional specific intent to steal. Similarly, conviction of common law burglary required not only an intentional breaking and entry, but in addition a specific intent to commit a felony therein. Use of the term, however, has not been universal and consistent. General intent is often distinguished from specific intent, although the distinction being drawn by the use of these two terms often varies. Sometimes general intent is used in the same way as criminal intent to mean the general notion of mens rea, while specific intent is taken to mean the mental state required for a particular crime. Or, general intent may be used to encompass all forms of the mental state requirement, while specific intent is limited to the one mental state of intent. Another possibility is that general intent will be used to characterize an intent to do something on an undetermined occasion, and specific intent to denote an intent to do that thing at a particular time and place. LaFave & Scott, supra, at 201-202. Others have similarly expressed dissatisfaction with the variety of terms, including specific intent, to describe culpable mental states. Many of such terms are used indiscriminately and, to a large extent, are not defined; whatever light is shed on the meaning of defined terms becomes obscured by the failure to define seemingly synonymous terms; some terms are used interchangeably but not always consistently; the meanings of some terms overlap or shade into one another; and terms are not sharply distinguished one from another to show that some differ in kind while others differ only in degree. 1 Wharton's Criminal Law § 27, at 136 (C.Torcia ed. 1978). In order to promote greater clarity and precision, the specific intent  general intent terminology was abandoned in the Model Penal Code. Id.; LaFave & Scott, supra, at 202; Model Penal Code § 2.02 comment (Tent.Draft No. 4, 1955). Indiana substantially implemented this approach with revision of its criminal code in 1976 and the statutory designation of intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly as specific terms denoting degrees of criminal culpability. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2. Subsequent cases holding that the Indiana attempt statute can have application only to specific intent crimes resulted from discussions reviewing whether the Indiana attempt statute applies to crimes requiring a culpability of mere recklessly, rather than intentionally or knowingly. See Zickefoose v. State (1979), 270 Ind. 618, 388 N.E.2d 507 (attempted murder); Smith v. State (1981), Ind., 422 N.E.2d 1179 (attempted involuntary manslaughter); Clemons v. State (1981), Ind., 424 N.E.2d 113 (attempted involuntary manslaughter and attempted reckless homicide); Humes v. State (1981), Ind., 426 N.E.2d 379 (criminal recklessness); Rhode v. State (1979), 181 Ind. App. 265, 391 N.E.2d 666 (attempted reckless homicide); Tunstall v. State (1983), Ind., 451 N.E.2d 1077 (criminal recklessness). As used in this line of cases, the term specific intent was utilized to exclude application of the attempt statute to crimes requiring recklessly as the prerequisite culpability. The term was not used in its specific sense found in criminal law jurisprudence. The meaning of specific intent, as used in the above attempt statute cases, is also distinguishable from the intended meaning in those cases which have commented that battery is not a specific intent crime. In Norris, the defendant contended that he was so intoxicated that he could not form any specific intent to commit the offenses of murder, battery, resisting arrest, and possession of controlled substances. Perfunctorily noting that of all the offenses charged, only the attempted murder is a specific intent crime, the Norris court proceeded to find the evidence sufficient to find the defendant capable of forming the specific intent to kill. 419 N.E.2d at 132-133. Similarly discussing a claim of insufficient evidence, Matthews v. State (1985), Ind., 476 N.E.2d 847, involved a defendant's claim that his specific intent at the time he fired three shots was simply to escape the danger which had confronted him, rather than to specifically batter Officer Dieter. Citing Norris, the court recited that battery is not a specific intent crime, and then proceeded to find the evidence sufficient to prove that the defendant intended an unlawful touching. In both of these cases, the description of battery as not a specific intent crime was an unnecessary and inadvertent reference. In Johnson, this Court affirmed the trial court's refusal to give tendered instructions regarding criminal recklessness as a lesser-included offense of battery, noting that evidence of defendant's drug use could not convert otherwise intentional acts into reckless conduct because neither battery nor criminal recklessness are specific intent crimes, and therefore the defense of voluntary intoxication is prohibited by statute. [1] We decline to view Johnson as instructive upon the issue of whether battery is a specific intent crime. There were two reasons given priority in the Court's rationale for affirming the trial court's refusal to give the tendered instructions. First, defendant's arguments supporting tendered instructions on criminal recklessness were rejected because it is apparent that the battery was accomplished by the direct act of pulling a pistol and firing into the body of the victim, thus emphasizing the absence of evidence of mere recklessness. Second, the opinion emphasized that defendant's tendered instructions were confusing, incomplete, and inadequate because of their failure to explain the role of an uncharged lesser-included offense, and to define the words recklessly, knowingly, and intentionally. The discussion of specific intent and battery in Johnson therefore does not compel us to conclude that the culpability required for battery precludes application of the Indiana attempt statute. The offense of battery, Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1, requires proof that the accused knowingly or intentionally touched another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. In its comments to the battery statute, the Criminal Law Study Commission included the following: It should be noted there is no crime of assault in the proposed Code. Because the Code has a general attempt crime, I.C. 35-11.1-8-1, the Commission believed it redundant to include the specific crime of assault which is nothing more than an attempted battery. Therefore, all assaults should be prosecuted as attempted batteries. Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-2-1 (West 1978, p. 302.) We conclude that battery is not among the class of offenses whose prerequisite culpability precludes application of the Indiana attempt statute. The offense of attempted battery is a valid and cognizable offense under Indiana law. There is no error on this issue.