People v. Gentry
510 N.E.2d 963, 157 Ill.App.3d 899 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury instruction for the crime of attempted murder is erroneous if it includes the full statutory definition of murder, which encompasses mental states other than the specific intent to kill, such as the intent to do great bodily harm or knowledge that one's acts create a strong probability of death.
Facts:
- Stanley Gentry and his girlfriend, Ruby Hill, lived together in an apartment in Chicago.
- On December 13, 1983, after drinking for the afternoon, the couple began to argue.
- During the argument, Gentry spilled gasoline on Hill.
- The gasoline on Hill's body ignited after she went near the gas stove in the kitchen, causing severe burns.
- Gentry used a coat to smother the flames.
- Hill was the only other eyewitness besides Gentry.
- At trial, Hill testified that the incident was an accident, that she still loved Gentry, and that she intended to live with him again.
Procedural Posture:
- Stanley Gentry was charged with attempted murder and aggravated battery.
- Following a jury trial in the circuit court, Gentry was convicted on both counts.
- At the sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the aggravated battery conviction into the attempted murder conviction.
- The trial court sentenced Gentry to a 45-year term of imprisonment for attempted murder.
- Gentry, the appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Appellate Court of Illinois.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a jury instruction for attempted murder that includes the full statutory definition of murder, encompassing mental states less than a specific intent to kill, constitute reversible error when the defendant's intent is a central issue in the case?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Linn
Yes, such an instruction constitutes reversible error. The crime of attempted murder requires proof of a specific intent to kill, which is the highest level of culpability. An instruction that allows a jury to convict based on a lesser mental state—such as intent to do great bodily harm or knowledge that one's acts create a strong probability of death—is incorrect because those mental states, while sufficient for murder if a death occurs, are insufficient for attempted murder. The court cited established precedent from the Illinois Supreme Court in cases like People v. Trinkle and People v. Jones, confirming that specific intent to kill is a pivotal and necessary element. The court rejected the State's argument that the error was harmless, reasoning that when a defendant's intent is the central contested issue at trial, a misinstruction on that fundamental element is a prejudicial error that deprives the jury of a necessary tool for its function, thus requiring a new trial.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict legal distinction between the mental states required for murder and attempted murder in Illinois. The decision solidifies the principle that only a specific intent to kill can sustain an attempted murder conviction, preventing convictions based on reckless or knowing conduct that might result in death. It clarifies that when a defendant's intent is at issue, providing the jury with the broader definition of murder is a fundamental error, not a harmless one. This holding serves as a crucial guideline for trial courts in crafting jury instructions for attempt crimes, ensuring that the jury is focused solely on the required specific intent element.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Gentry