State v. Hinkhouse
912 P.2d 921 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person is guilty of attempting to commit a crime when they intentionally engage in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of the crime. Additionally, a defendant may be criminally liable for sexual activity that exposes others to a risk of HIV infection if the defendant acts with the intent to cause serious bodily injury or death.
Facts:
- Timothy Alan Hinkhouse (defendant) is HIV-positive and was convicted of ten counts of attempted murder and ten counts of attempted assault I.
- Hinkhouse engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse with multiple victims without disclosing his HIV status.
- The defendant was informed of his HIV status in 1989 and was aware of the risks of transmission and the fatal nature of the disease.
- Despite warnings from his probation officer about the seriousness of HIV and the need for precautions, Hinkhouse continued to engage in unprotected sex and lied about his HIV status.
- Hinkhouse signed a probation agreement to refrain from unsupervised contact with women without approval from his probation officer, but violated this agreement.
- The trial court denied Hinkhouse's motion for a judgment of acquittal, and he appealed on the grounds of insufficient evidence to prove intent to harm.
- Evidence was presented that Hinkhouse had expressed an intent to spread the virus if he was HIV-positive and engaged in a pattern of exploitation over a long period of time.
- Hinkhouse took precautions such as condom usage and disclosure with a woman he intended to marry, but deliberately avoided such precautions with other sexual partners.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is there sufficient evidence to support the convictions of Timothy Alan Hinkhouse for attempted murder and attempted assault I, based on his conduct of engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse with multiple victims without disclosing his HIV-positive status, considering his pattern of behavior and statements indicating intent to spread the virus?
Opinions:
Majority - Landau, J.
Yes, there is sufficient evidence to support the convictions. Hinkhouse knew he was HIV positive and that transmitting the virus could be fatal. He engaged in a persistent pattern of recruiting sexual partners, consistently lied about his HIV status, and refused to use protection, even when partners requested it. His conduct went beyond mere sexual gratification, as evidenced by his use of condoms with a partner he cared about, contrasting with his deceptive and unprotected intercourse with others. The pattern of exploitation and deliberate actions, including statements about intentionally spreading the virus, support the conclusion that Hinkhouse acted with the conscious objective to cause serious bodily injury and death. The court also noted that Hinkhouse's willingness to expose victims to HIV infection was a valid aggravating factor for imposing maximum, consecutive sentences.
Analysis:
This case establishes that individuals who are HIV-positive have a legal duty to avoid intentionally exposing others to the risk of infection. It sets a precedent for finding criminal intent in cases involving the deliberate transmission of deadly diseases, particularly when there is a pattern of deceptive and reckless behavior over an extended period. The decision also highlights the importance of considering aggravating factors, such as the defendant's willingness to endanger others, in sentencing. The case may influence public health policies and criminal laws related to the disclosure of HIV status and the prosecution of individuals who knowingly expose others to the virus.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Hinkhouse