Opinion ID: 2999973
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: on or about August 21, 1997,

Text: 2. acting with the specific intent to commit murder, to-wit: knowingly killing James Hardy, 3. did intentionally point a loaded [gun] at the head of the said James Hardy and repeatedly pull the trigger . . . . If the State failed to prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the Defendant not guilty. If the State did prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the Defendant guilty of the crime of attempted murder . . . . S.C.R. at 696-97. No. 05-3084 11 Court’s Final Instruction No. 5 Attempt is a crime of specific intent, that is, it must be done with the intent to commit the alleged felony. Specific intent is a material element of the crime charged, and must be proven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. In laymen’s terms, intent means a person’s purpose or state of mind at the time he engages in the alleged criminal act. Since one’s purpose and/or intent are subjective facts, the State is not required to make proof of specific intent by direct evidence. Therefore, in order to determine the defendant’s purpose and/or intent, you may look to all of the surrounding circumstances, including what was said and done at the time of the alleged criminal act. A determination of the defendant’s intent may be arrived at by the jury from a consideration of the defendant’s conduct and from the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged criminal act. S.C.R. at 700. Court’s Final Instruction No. 11 A person who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another person to commit an offense commits that offense. To ‘aid’ under the law is to knowingly aid, support, help or assist in the commission of a crime. It is knowingly doing some act to render aid to the actual perpetrator of the crime, though without taking a direct share in its commission. S.C.R. at 706. Court’s Final Instruction No. 12 The Court instructs you that it is the law in Indiana that a person engaged in the commission of an unlawful act is legally responsible for all the consequences 12 No. 05-3084 which may naturally or necessarily flow from it. If he combines and confederates with others to accomplish an illegal purpose, he is liable criminally for everything done by his confederates which flows incidentally from the execution of the common design as the natural and probable consequences of the common design. This rule of criminal responsibility for the acts of others is subject to the reasonable limitation that the particular act or acts of one member of a party, for which the other associates and confederates are held to be liable, must be shown to have been done in furtherance or in prosecution of the common object and design for which the persons combined together. S.C.R. at 707. Court’s Final Instruction No. 14 An accomplice does not need to commit each element of an offense if the accomplice acts in concert with another individual who commits the requisite acts. The acts of one accomplice are imputed to all other accomplices. S.C.R. at 709.