People v. Trinkle
12 Ill. Dec. 181, 68 Ill.2d 198, 369 N.E.2d 888 (1977)
Rule of Law:
To sustain a conviction for attempted murder, the State must prove the defendant possessed the specific intent to kill; proof that the defendant acted with knowledge that his acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm is insufficient for an attempt charge.
Facts:
- The defendant, Trinkle, consumed 20 to 30 glasses of beer at Suppan’s Tavern.
- The bartender refused to serve Trinkle further alcohol because he appeared intoxicated.
- Trinkle went to another bar, consumed more drinks, and purchased a .357 handgun.
- He returned to the area of Suppan’s Tavern.
- Trinkle fired a shot at the tavern building.
- The shot wounded a patron inside the tavern.
Procedural Posture:
- The State indicted the defendant for attempted murder.
- The trial court jury convicted the defendant of attempted murder based on instructions that did not require specific intent.
- The defendant appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The Illinois Appellate Court reversed the attempted murder conviction, modified the judgment to aggravated battery, and reduced the sentence.
- The State petitioned the Supreme Court of Illinois for leave to appeal.
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 crime of attempted murder require the specific intent to kill, or is it sufficient to prove the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Dooley
Yes, attempted murder requires a specific intent to kill. The court reasoned that the attempt statute explicitly requires an 'intent to commit a specific offense.' While the definition of murder includes acts performed knowing they create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm (without specific intent to kill), the crime of 'attempted' murder cannot rely on this mental state. One cannot legally 'attempt' to achieve an unintended result. If specific intent were not required, the distinction between attempted murder and aggravated battery would vanish, despite the vast disparity in their penalties. The court cited People v. Viser to affirm that felony murder logic (which lacks specific intent) cannot apply to attempted murder.
Analysis:
This case creates a critical distinction between the mental state required for a completed crime versus an inchoate (incomplete) crime. It establishes that while a defendant can be convicted of murder for reckless acts if a victim dies (implied malice), that same recklessness cannot support an attempted murder conviction if the victim survives. This ruling prevents prosecutors from charging attempted murder for reckless conduct that constitutes aggravated battery, ensuring that the severe penalties associated with attempted murder are reserved for those who actively intend to take a life.
