Thacker v. Commonwealth
134 Va. 767, 1922 Va. LEXIS 197, 114 S.E. 504 (1922)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for an attempt to commit a crime requires proof of a specific intent to commit the underlying crime. For attempted murder, the prosecution must prove the defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim; general recklessness or malice is insufficient.
Facts:
- John Thacker and two friends became intoxicated at a church festival.
- They left the festival and walked to a sharp curve in the road where Mrs. J. A. Ratrie and her family were camping for the summer in a tent.
- A lighted lamp was visible inside the tent, placed on a trunk by the head of Mrs. Ratrie's bed.
- Thacker was heard stating his intention to 'shoot that God-damned light out.'
- After a brief interaction where Mrs. Ratrie denied them lodging, Thacker's group walked back to the road.
- Thacker again stated he was going to shoot the light out and fired three shots from his pistol.
- Two bullets entered the tent, and one passed through the head of the bed where Mrs. Ratrie and her baby were sleeping, narrowly missing them.
- Thacker did not know Mrs. Ratrie and testified he had no ill will toward her, only intending to shoot the light.
Procedural Posture:
- John Thacker was prosecuted in the trial court in Alleghany County.
- A jury found Thacker guilty of attempting to murder Mrs. J. A. Ratrie and fixed his punishment at two years in the penitentiary.
- The trial court entered a judgment upon the verdict.
- Thacker moved to set aside the verdict as contrary to the law and the evidence.
- The trial court refused the motion.
- Thacker appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
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 a defendant commit attempted murder if he fires a gun in the direction of a person, an act which could have resulted in death, but without the specific intent to kill that person?
Opinions:
Majority - West, J.
No. A defendant does not commit attempted murder without a specific intent to kill. To be guilty of an attempt to murder, the defendant must have the specific intent to take a life. The court reasoned that an attempt crime has two elements: the intent to commit the crime and a direct act toward its commission. While an unintended killing can sometimes constitute murder (e.g., through an act of extreme recklessness), an attempt requires the specific intent to bring about the criminal result. The law does not presume an intent to murder merely because a deadly weapon was used in a dangerous manner. Here, the evidence showed Thacker's intent was to shoot the light, not to kill Mrs. Ratrie. Therefore, the essential element of a specific intent to murder was not proven.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial distinction between the mental state required for a completed crime versus an attempted crime. It clarifies that for inchoate offenses like attempt, the mens rea (intent) must be specific to the result, even if the completed offense could be established with a less specific mental state like recklessness or general malice. This precedent raises the evidentiary bar for prosecutors in attempted murder cases, requiring them to prove a defendant's subjective state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, it prevents convictions for attempted murder based solely on dangerously reckless conduct that did not stem from a specific purpose to kill.
