Opinion ID: 2519950
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Utah Cases Concerning Attempted Murder

Text: ¶ 23 In other cases in which we have discussed the level of culpability necessary to convict a defendant of attempted murder, we have consistently required intentional conduct. A month before we decided Maestas, we held that an attempted manslaughter conviction requires intentional conduct. See State v. Howell, 649 P.2d 91 (Utah 1982) (holding that one can be convicted of attempted manslaughter under the subsections of section 76-5-205 that require intentional conduct but not under the subsection that only requires the mens rea of recklessness). In that case, we reasoned that one cannot be guilty of an attempt to commit a crime unless the necessary mens rea of the completed crime is intentional conduct. To convict of an attempt, one must necessarily have the intent required to convict of the complete crime. Id. at 94 n. 1. ¶ 24 Analyzing the attempt statute in another case, we reached a similar result on the issue of whether a defendant could be charged with attempted murder under the felony-murder alternative of the murder statute. [7] The crime of attempted murder does not fit within the felony-murder doctrine because an attempt to commit a crime requires proof of an intent to consummate the crime, and numerous courts have held that the crime of attempted murder requires proof of intent to kill. State v. Bell, 785 P.2d 390, 393 (Utah 1989) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). Indeed, in the face of logic, the conclusion is inescapable that the crime of attempted murder requires proof of intent to kill. Therefore, we also hold that attempted felony-murder does not exist as a crime in Utah. Id. at 394. Through these decisions, we have consistently interpreted the attempt statute narrowly, requiring a showing of the defendant's intent to consummate the crime for conviction. Thus, no conviction for attempt may be obtained without evidence of intentional conduct.