The verdict of the court about King’s action borders two categories of his state of mind: specific intent and general intent. I hold that specific intent should be an element of attempted murder, and all attempt crimes, in general. Specific intent designates that the prosecution provides evidence that the defendant intended to achieve a specific goal. That, in this case, King intended to kill Brown. An attempt is a failure to accomplish what was intended. There is no such thing as an intention to achieve an unintended result; hence, implied malice cannot justify attempt crimes. Attempted murder can only be committed when there is express malice. We found out that officer Butler only found a single bullet casing inside the cub from the provided evidence. Claims from her testimony that about three to four shots fired that night could not be proven. Moreover, Brown’s testimony that King fired at him outside the cab could not be proven either. This eliminates the aspect of express malice, which justifies attempt crimes. It dwells on ‘implied malice.’
For this reason, we cannot regard King’s men's rea to be specific intent. King’s state of mind falls under general intent. With general intent crimes, the very doing of the act that is considered a crime is enough to sustain a conviction. There is general intent to prove that the defendant was aware of what he/she was doing. A voluntary act that constitutes an illegal act. From the evidence, we see that Brown was shot at the elbow in a struggle. As seen above, this and lack of evidence support that King’s intention was not to kill. His conviction for attempted murder was erred.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Work Cited
State v. King
