People v. Lee Bond
178 Ill. App.3d 959, 128 Ill. Dec. 75, 533 N.E.2d 1163 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The specific intent to kill required for an attempted murder conviction can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as the defendant's verbal threats, the character of the assault, and the use of a deadly weapon. Firing a gun multiple times toward a person's vehicle is sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact can infer intent to kill.
Facts:
- On April 28, 1987, Sheila Hayes asked Jackey Lee Bond for help with transportation for their sick daughter, but Bond could not arrange it.
- Clara Lamb drove Hayes and the daughter to Bond's house, where Bond asked Lamb to take them to a doctor's appointment.
- Lamb refused, leading to a heated argument between Lamb and Bond.
- The argument escalated, with Bond throwing two bricks at Lamb's car, and Lamb responding by throwing a bottle at a car parked in front of Bond's house.
- Bond stated, "I'm going to shoot that bitch," and went into his house to get a gun.
- Bond emerged with a handgun, assumed a "firing range stance," and fired three or four shots at Lamb's car as she was driving away.
- One of the shots struck the rear driver's side door of Lamb's car, leaving a gouge coated with a lead-like substance.
Procedural Posture:
- Jackey Lee Bond was charged by information in the circuit court of Macon County with attempt (murder) and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon.
- The case was tried in a bench trial (by a judge without a jury).
- At the close of the State's case, the trial court dismissed one count of attempt (murder) related to a different victim.
- The circuit court found Bond guilty of the attempt (murder) of Clara Lamb and two counts of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon.
- The trial court sentenced Bond to concurrent prison terms of seven and three years.
- Bond (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court, arguing the State (appellee) failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
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 firing a handgun multiple times at a person's moving vehicle, following a verbal threat to shoot that person, provide sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to infer the specific intent to kill required for an attempted murder conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Knecht
Yes. Firing a handgun multiple times at a person's moving vehicle, following a verbal threat to shoot, provides sufficient evidence to infer the specific intent to kill required for an attempted murder conviction. The court reasoned that intent to kill can rarely be proven by direct evidence and must often be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the incident, such as the character of the assault and the use of a deadly weapon. While the defendant claimed he only fired into the air to frighten the victim, the testimony of state's witnesses, corroborated by physical evidence, supported the conclusion that he aimed and fired at the victim's car. The physical evidence—including the pattern of discharged cartridge cases and a lead-coated gouge on the car door—indicated the defendant's actions 'exceeded any attempt to merely frighten Lamb' and were consistent with an intent to kill. The court deferred to the trier of fact's role in weighing conflicting testimony and found the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that a defendant's subjective state of mind, a critical element in specific intent crimes, can be proven entirely through objective, circumstantial evidence. The court's reliance on physical evidence to corroborate witness testimony and resolve inconsistencies highlights how prosecutors can build a strong case for intent even when the defendant offers an alternative explanation for their actions. This precedent strengthens the prosecution's ability to secure attempted murder convictions in cases where the defendant's actions are objectively lethal, regardless of their claimed lack of homicidal intent. It makes it significantly more difficult for a defendant to claim they were merely trying to 'scare' someone after firing a deadly weapon at them.
