Keys v. State
| Decision Date | 29 December 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 17923,17923 |
| Citation | 766 P.2d 270,104 Nev. 736 |
| Parties | Jimmy Harrell KEYS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Morgan D. Harris, Public Defender, and Victor John Austin, Deputy Public Defender, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Brian McKay, Atty. Gen., Carson City, Rex Bell, Dist. Atty., and Alan J. Buttell, Deputy Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.
Appellant Keys appeals from three convictions, second degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon and aiming a firearm. The murder conviction and conviction for aiming a firearm are affirmed; the attempted murder conviction is reversed.
Keys shot a man, Coleman, in the chest and killed him. While fleeing the scene of the murder Keys encountered another man, Jones, whom he assaulted with the murder weapon. Keys pointed his handgun at Jones's torso and ordered Jones to drive him away. When Jones refused, Keys pulled the trigger twice, but the gun failed to fire, and Jones escaped.
Keys contends that there is insufficient evidence of malice to support a murder conviction. This is a clear case of murder with implied malice. "Malice shall be implied when no considerable provocation appears, or when all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart." NRS 200.020. "Malice aforethought may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in a deadly and dangerous manner." Moser v. State, 91 Nev. 809, 812, 544 P.2d 424, 426 (1975).
Malice can be present in the absence of an express intent to kill and "as applied to murder does not necessarily import ill will toward the victim, but signifies general malignant recklessness of others' lives and safety or disregard of social duty." Thedford v. Sheriff, 86 Nev. 741, 744, 476 P.2d 25, 27 (1970). The case at hand is a classic case of implied malice in which the defendant's actions show malice in law, that is a malignant disregard and recklessness concerning the life and safety of another. Ample evidence was adduced at trial that Keys used the handgun in a deadly and dangerous manner. Moreover, two eyewitnesses to the shooting, Michael Moore and Billy Armstrong, testified that the killing did not appear to them to be accidental, and Michelle Coleman testified that Keys threatened to kill Ronald Coleman before Keys actually shot him. The second degree murder conviction is unassailable and must stand.
Keys requested that the jury be instructed that one could not be convicted of attempted murder unless it were proven that he had the "intent specifically to kill" another person. It was error for the trial court to refuse to instruct the jury that the specific intent to kill is an essential element of the crime of attempted murder. See Ramos v. State, 95 Nev. 251, 592 P.2d 950 (1979) (). The error was compounded by the district court's instructions to the jury on implied malice. Implied malice is malice inferred in law from the defendant's conduct rather than by proof of an actual intention to kill. The mens rea encompassed by implied malice has no application in a prosecution in which a specific intent to kill is a required element of the accused offense. An instruction on implied malice in relation to the crime of attempted murder is misleading to a jury.
The question of specific intent to kill as an element of attempted murder and an associated question relating to whether attempted murder may be divided into degrees, attempted murder in the first degree or second degree, present issues deserving of some explanation and discussion.
Courts in other jurisdictions have noted a certain degree of confusion on whether specific intent is an essential element of attempted murder. For example, in the case of People v. Kraft, 133 Ill.App.3d 294, 88 Ill.Dec. 546, 549, 478 N.E.2d 1154, 1157 (1 Dist.1985), the court commented:
Judging from the number of decisions addressing this issue, the proper jury instructions for attempted murder has served as a continuing source of confusion and uncertainty among members of the bar. All authorities agree that the crime of attempt is a specific intent crime and "an instruction must make it clear that to convict for attempted murder nothing less than a criminal intent to kill must be shown."
(Citations omitted).
In the hope of allaying any confusion and uncertainty that might attend the subject of attempted murder in this jurisdiction we review and examine this area of the criminal law.
An attempt to commit a crime is punishable under Nevada law. NRS 193.330 provides that an "act done with intent to commit a crime, and tending but failing to accomplish it, is an attempt to commit that crime." NRS 193.330. Keys is charged with attempted murder, that is, an act done with the intent to commit murder, such act tending but failing to accomplish the crime of murder. Intent to commit murder means the intent to kill someone with malice aforethought. Murder, by definition, is the "unlawful killing of a human being, with malice aforethought, either express or implied." NRS 200.010.
The mens rea requirement denoted by the term express malice is different from that of implied malice. Express malice, called malice in fact, is the deliberate intention to kill; implied malice, called malice in law, does not relate to a deliberate, intentional killing but is rather a mens rea inferred in law from the "circumstances of the killing." NRS 200.020. Proving express malice means proving a deliberate intention to kill; while proving implied malice means proving only the commission of wrongful acts from which, absent any proof of an actual intent to harm, the archaic but essential "abandoned and malignant heart" can be inferred in law.
Attempted murder can be committed only when the accused's acts are accompanied by express malice, malice in fact. One cannot attempt to kill another with implied malice because there " 'is no such criminal offense as an attempt to achieve an unintended result.' " Ramos, 95 Nev. at 253, 592 P.2d at 951 (quoting People v. Viser, 62 Ill.2d 568, 343 N.E.2d 903, 910 (1975)). An attempt, by nature, is a failure to accomplish what one intended to do. Attempt means to try; it means an effort to bring about a desired result. Thus one cannot attempt to be negligent or attempt to have the general malignant recklessness contemplated by the legal concept, "implied malice." One cannot be guilty of attempted murder by implied malice because implied malice does not encompass the essential specific intent to kill.
An attempt to kill with express malice is, on the other hand, completely consistent with the specific intent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Whitfield
...offense. An instruction on implied malice in relation to the crime of attempted murder is misleading to a jury." (Keys v. State (1988), 104 Nev. 736, 766 P.2d 270, 272 [discussing a Nevada statute similar to California law in language and prior interpretation].) Thus we have held quite rece......
-
State v. Kimbrough
...to accomplish what one intended to do. Attempt means to try; it means an effort to bring about a desired result." Keys v. State, 104 Nev. 736, 766 P.2d 270, 273 (1988). The concept of attempt seems necessarily to involve the notion of an intended consequence, for when one attempts to do som......
-
Byford v. State
...as a "determination to kill"7 because express malice means a deliberate intention to kill (see NRS 200.020(1); Keys v. State, 104 Nev. 736, 740, 766 P.2d 270, 272 (1988)), and, by definition, an "intention" is "a determination to act in a certain way." See Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dic......
-
Leonard v. State
...This court has characterized the statutory language "abandoned and malignant heart" as "archaic but essential." Keys v. State, 104 Nev. 736, 740, 766 P.2d 270, 272 (1988). This court held that similar instructions "accurately informed the jury of the distinction between express malice and i......