Court Opinion

ID: 9795721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:37:02.415232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:35:16.725857
License: Public Domain

Green, J.:
I concur in part and dissent in part. My reason for dissenting may be briefly stated.
I believe that the State’s information charging Wilson with attempt to commit first-degree murder was defective under our Supreme Court’s reasoning in State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 746-47, 793 P.2d 737 (1990). In Hall, although count II of the complaint stated that the defendant was being charged under K.S.A. 1984 Supp. 21-3701, a class E felony, the complaint failed to allege that the defendant had the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his cattle. As a result, our Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s conviction of theft.
Similar to Hall, the State’s information referred to the statute under which Wilson was charged. Nevertheless, the State failed to allege in the information that Wilson had committed a premeditated overt act. In Hall, our Supreme Court stated:
“There can be little doubt of what the State intended to charge in Count II. The theft statute was specifically mentioned. However, we have held that an information which omits one or more of the essential elements of the crime it attempts to charge is jurisdictionally and fatally defective and a conviction on that offense must be reversed. State v. Wilson, 240 Kan. 606, 607, 731 P.2d 306 (1987). The information does not charge theft in Count II. Our past precedent requires a reversal as to Count II.” 246 Kan. at 747.
*503In this case, premeditation was an essential element of the crime charged. The information does not charge attempted murder in the first degree. Because the premeditation element was omitted from the information, I would reverse this conviction. I concur with the remainder of the majority’s opinion.