People v. Lee Bond
128 Ill. Dec. 75, 533 N.E.2d 1163, 178 Ill. App.3d 959 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's specific intent to kill for an attempted murder conviction can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including the character of the assault and the use of a deadly weapon, particularly when physical evidence corroborates eyewitness testimony and contradicts the defendant's claims.
Facts:
- Sheila Hayes went to the home of the defendant, Jackey Lee Bond, to ask for money for their sick daughter, Ferita, and for help with transportation to a doctor's appointment.
- Bond gave Hayes money but was unable to arrange transportation.
- Clara Lamb, a friend, drove Hayes and Ferita back to Bond's house.
- Bond asked Lamb if she could drive Hayes and Ferita to the doctor, but Lamb refused, leading to an argument between Bond and Lamb.
- 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.
- Witnesses testified that Bond then threatened to shoot Lamb, went into his house, and emerged with a handgun.
- As Lamb drove away with Ferita in the car, Bond fired the handgun several times.
- One of the shots struck the rear door on the driver's side of Lamb's car.
Procedural Posture:
- Jackey Lee Bond was charged by information in the circuit court of Macon County with two counts of attempt (murder) and two counts of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial (trial by judge, no jury).
- At the close of the State’s case, the trial court dismissed one count of attempt (murder) concerning Ferita Sharee Hayes.
- The trial court found Bond guilty of the attempted murder of Clara Lamb and two counts of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon.
- The court sentenced Bond to concurrent terms of imprisonment.
- Bond, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court, arguing the State, as appellee, failed to prove 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 the State prove a defendant's specific intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt for an attempted murder conviction when the defendant claims he only fired a weapon to frighten the victim, but physical evidence and eyewitness testimony indicate he aimed and fired at the victim's occupied vehicle as it drove away?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Knecht
Yes. The State proved the defendant's specific intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt. Intent can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding an incident, such as the character of the assault and the use of a deadly weapon. Here, the defendant's actions went far beyond merely frightening the victim. The court found the testimony of the State's witnesses, who stated that Bond aimed and fired at Lamb's car as she drove away, to be credible. This testimony was strongly corroborated by physical evidence, including the pattern of discharged cartridge cases found at the scene, which indicated firing at a moving target, and a gouge coated with a lead-like substance on Lamb's car, which indicated the impact of a bullet. The court reasoned that if Bond had only intended to frighten Lamb by firing into the air as he claimed, this physical evidence would not exist. Therefore, the combination of eyewitness testimony and corroborating physical evidence was sufficient for the trier of fact to infer the specific intent to kill.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the legal principle that a defendant's mental state, specifically the intent to kill, can be established through circumstantial evidence without direct proof. It underscores the critical role of physical evidence in resolving conflicts between witness testimonies. The decision solidifies that a trier of fact is entitled to weigh the credibility of witnesses and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented, a judgment that appellate courts are reluctant to overturn. For future cases, this opinion serves as a strong precedent for prosecutors building attempted murder cases on circumstantial evidence, demonstrating that a defendant's self-serving claims of a lesser intent can be overcome by evidence of actions that are fundamentally inconsistent with that claim.
