People v. Gentry

510 N.E.2d 963 (1987)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D and his girlfriend, Ruby Hill, shared an apartment. They began to argue. During the argument, D spilled gasoline on Hill, and the gasoline on Hill's body ignited. D was able to smother the flames with a coat, but only after Hill had been severely burned. D and Hill were the only eyewitnesses to the incident. Hill had suffered third-degree burns over 70% of her body. They further testified that after some initial treatment, Hill was transported by ambulance to Cook County Hospital and that D accompanied Hill in the ambulance. A detective originally classified the fire as 'accidental' but later changed his mind when he discovered that Hill's clothing had been doused with gasoline. At trial, Hill stated that she and D had been drinking all afternoon and that both of them were 'pretty high.' She further testified that D had poured gasoline on her and that the gasoline ignited only after she had gone near the stove in the kitchen. Hill also related how D tried to snuff the fire out by placing a coat over the flames. Hill had lived with D for three years prior to the accident, wanted to marry D, and still loved D notwithstanding the fire incident. Hill claimed that the entire episode was an accident and that she intended to again live with D after the case was over. P impeached Hill's trial testimony with statements that she had previously told others it was not an accident and D intentionally torched her with a match. The jury found D guilty of attempted murder and aggravated battery. D appealed. D contends that the jury was improperly instructed on the required mental state for attempted murder where the instructions given would permit a conviction without a finding that D possessed the specific intent to kill. The trial court defined 'attempt' as it relates to the underlying felony of murder: 'The defendant performed an act which constituted a substantial step towards the commission of the offense of murder; and, that the defendant did so with intent to commit the crime of murder.' It then defined the crime of murder, including all four culpable mental states: 'he intends to kill or do great bodily harm to that individual; or he knows that such acts will cause death to that individual; or he knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual.' D contends that the inclusion of all the alternative states of mind in the definitional murder instruction was erroneous because the crime of attempted murder requires a showing of specific intent to kill.