People v. Harris
377 N.E.2d 28 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for attempted murder requires proof of a specific intent to kill. Jury instructions are erroneous if they state that a defendant may be found guilty of attempted murder if he acted with an intent to do great bodily harm or with the knowledge that his acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm.
Facts:
- Facts of People v. Harris:
- William Myers Harris and Joyce Baker, who had been dating, were arguing in a car.
- Harris picked up a revolver, placed it in his lap pointing toward Baker, and made remarks she interpreted as death threats.
- Alarmed, Baker got out of the car, ran into a fence, and then returned.
- Baker then got into the driver's seat and drove away.
- As she drove off, Baker saw Harris in her rearview mirror standing behind the car, pointing the gun at her with both hands.
- Baker then heard something strike the rear window, which shattered.
- Police later found a bullet fragment on the rear seat of the car.
- Facts of People v. Shields:
- Johnnie E. Shields fought with Marion Bradley's son, Robert, in Shields's apartment.
- Shortly after, Shields went to the Bradley's apartment door with a shotgun and said, 'I’m going to kill you.'
- Robert and his mother, Marion Bradley, fled outdoors with Shields in pursuit.
- Marion Bradley stood in front of her son to protect him.
- Shields told Marion to move aside or he would 'blow her brains out,' and after a scuffle over the gun, he fired, wounding her.
Procedural Posture:
- Procedural Posture of People v. Harris:
- William Myers Harris was convicted of attempted murder by a jury in the state trial court.
- Harris appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.
- The Appellate Court affirmed the conviction but remanded the case for resentencing.
- The State appealed the resentencing order to the Supreme Court of Illinois, and Harris sought review of the appellate court's affirmance of his conviction.
- Procedural Posture of People v. Shields:
- Johnnie E. Shields was convicted of attempted murder by a jury in the state trial court.
- Shields appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, which initially affirmed the conviction.
- On rehearing, following the Supreme Court's decision in People v. Trinkle, the Appellate Court reversed the conviction.
- The State was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme 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:
Do jury instructions for attempted murder that define murder as including the mental states of intent to do great bodily harm or knowledge that one's acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm erroneously permit a jury to convict without finding the required specific intent to kill?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Ward
Yes. To sustain a conviction for attempted murder, the state must prove that the defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim. An instruction for attempted murder is erroneous if it includes the alternative mental states sufficient for a murder conviction, such as the intent to do great bodily harm or the knowledge that one's acts create a strong probability of death. The crime of attempt requires a specific intent to bring about the proscribed result, which in the case of murder, is the death of another. Because one cannot attempt to achieve an unintended result, the mental states that do not involve an intent to kill cannot support a conviction for attempted murder. The court explicitly overruled its prior holding in People v. Muir to the extent it allowed such instructions.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Ryan
Yes as to Harris, No as to Shields. The instruction in Harris was erroneous because it was based on a murder definition that explicitly included the alternative 'intent to do great bodily harm,' which directly conflicts with the required specific intent to kill for attempt. However, the instruction in Shields, based on the murder definition involving 'knowledge that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm,' was not erroneous when read together with the other instructions that properly required the jury to find the defendant had the 'intent to commit the crime of murder.' The mental state of 'knowledge' does not define the defendant's intent but describes the circumstances from which intent can be inferred, and thus does not mislead the jury when the issue instruction correctly states the specific intent requirement. Therefore, the conviction in Harris was rightly reversed, but the conviction in Shields should have been affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a significant conflict in Illinois law by establishing a clear, bright-line rule for the mens rea of attempted murder. By explicitly overruling the contrary holding in People v. Muir, the court eliminated the confusion caused by its earlier, seemingly contradictory decisions in Muir and People v. Trinkle. The ruling simplifies jury instructions and increases the burden on the prosecution, requiring proof of nothing less than a specific intent to kill. This prevents convictions for attempted murder based on mental states (intent to do great bodily harm or knowledge of a strong probability of death) that would only suffice for a murder charge if the victim had actually died.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Harris