Opinion ID: 1090851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Lack of Intent to Kill Theory

Text: ¶ 115. Russell argues that defense counsel should have investigated the possibility that the stabbing of Officer Cotton was an accident, or at least that Russell had no intent to kill him. First, defense counsel may have investigated this defense and found little or nothing to support it. Russell cites his own testimony at trial where he stated that he was intending to scare him with the knife. I didn't mean to stick him or nothing    It just surprised me, caught me by surprise that I had stabbed him. I really didn't mean to stab him.... The jury heard this evidence and was not convinced that it was unintentional, not surprising considering that Russell stabbed Officer Cotton more than once. As for Russell's argument that he was only trying to scratch up and catch out, or wound Officer Cotton so he could be transferred out of Unit 24-B, this argument was connected to the self-defense/gang scenario, which, once again, Russell never testified to. Finally, Russell once again makes the argument that he was not responsible for Officer Cotton's death because the delay in getting him to the hospital killed him, not the stabbing. Once again Russell cites no authority in support of this.