Opinion ID: 2594539
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The jury instructions regarding the actual commission of an attempt

Text: Our order of June 14, 2001, also directed the parties to address whether Instruction No. 11, when read together with the other instructions, properly informed the jury that it must find that an attempted murder was actually committed. The State argues that together with Instruction No. 20, the instruction properly informed the jury. Instruction No. 20 provided: An act done with the intent to commit a crime, and tending but failing to accomplish it, is an attempt to commit that crime. Although the State's position is arguable, in light of our conclusion that the jury was incorrectly instructed on the mens rea required for aiding and abetting attempted murder, it is unnecessary to reach this issue. We note, however, that a single instruction properly defining all the essential elements of the crime charged might have been far less confusing and problematic. Although all jury instructions should be tailored to the particular facts of each case, we offer the following as an example. In this case, the defendant is accused of attempted murder under two theories of liability. In order to find the defendant guilty of attempted murder, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) with the deliberate intention to unlawfully kill the victim, the defendant committed an act which tended, but failed to kill the victim; or (2) with the deliberate intention to unlawfully kill the victim, the defendant aided, abetted, counseled, or encouraged another person to kill the victim and that other person committed an act that tended, but failed to kill the victim.