State v. Elmi

207 P.3d 439 (2009)

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 telephoned his estranged wife Fadumo Aden and argued with her about renewing car tags for the car they shared. Aden was in the living room of her mother's house with her two siblings, ages three and five, and her and D's three-year-old child. Aden heard arguing outside, so she parted the curtains to look out the living room window and saw at least two people arguing near the street. After looking out the window, she sat with the children who were watching television. Seconds later, she heard gunshots piercing the living room window. Forensic testing matched the shell casings to the handgun. D was later arrested. D was charged with attempted murder and four counts of first-degree assault with a firearm enhancement. The trial court addressed transferred intent in the jury instruction: If a person assaults a particular individual or group of individuals with a firearm with the intent to inflict great bodily harm and by mistake, inadvertence, or indifference, the assault with the firearm took effect upon an unintended individual or individuals, the law provides that the intent to inflict great bodily harm with a firearm is transferred to the unintended individual or individuals as well. D was found guilty and appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the statutory intent against Aden, i.e., the intent to inflict great bodily harm, did not have to match a specific victim and proof of D's intent as to Aden satisfied the statutory intent element for the assaults against the children. The court found that even if specific intent was required to match a specific victim, the doctrine of transferred intent could be applied to transfer the intent against Aden to intent against the children. It rejected D's argument that the doctrine should not apply when unintended victims suffer no injury or D is unaware of their presence. The court affirmed the murder but vacated the assault as violating double jeopardy. D appealed.