Court Opinion

ID: 9672896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:02:29.864419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:19.044353
License: Public Domain

ZASTROW, Justice
(concurring specialty)-
Although I concur in the majority opinion, because of my concern for the validity of the conviction of the defendant for attempted murder under SDCL 22-4-1, I wish to clarify my position on the subject.
SDCL 22-4-1 provides that:
“Every person who attempts to commit any crime and in such attempt does any act toward the commission of such crime, but fails or is prevented or intercepted in the perpetration thereof, is punishable where no provision is made by law for the punishment of such attempt, as follows * * (emphasis added)
A similar attempt statute was held inapplicable to an attempted poisoning where there was a specific statute making an attempt to kill by poisoning a separate crime. Minter v. State, 1942, 75 Okl.Cr. 133, 129 P.2d 210. This would appear to be a general theory of criminal law. See generally, 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 74, et seq. It would appear that there is a “provision * * * made by law for the punishment of [an] attempt” to kill by shooting a firearm. The common law distinction between attempted murder and assault with intent to kill was apparently the element of “malice aforethought” required for murder. Because that element has been omitted from our statutory definition of murder, the distinction seems to have been removed. 40 C.J.S. Homicide § 68, et seq.; 40 Am.Jur.2d, Homicide, § 564. However, no objection to the charge or sentence was made at the trial, nor has the issue been raised or briefed on appeal. As to the implication of such a principle, I therefore reserve judgment until it is properly raised and briefed.
Likewise, the question of whether shooting a firearm with the intent to kill (SDCL 22-18-9) and shooting a firearm without an intent to kill (SDCL 22-18-10 and 22-18-11) would be lesser included offenses and whether instructions should have been given has not been raised at trial nor on appeal.
Defense counsel did raise on appeal the issue of the propriety of the prosecutor’s closing argument. Although I find the issue to be of merit, no objections were made at the trial and therefore the issue was not properly preserved for appeal.