Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

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.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.