State v. Maestas, No. 17751

• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HALL; STEWART, OAKS and HOWE, JJ., and DAVID B. DEE
• Citation: 652 P.2d 903
• Parties: The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Clyde MAESTAS, Defendant and Respondent.
• Decision Date: 21 July 1982
• Docket Number: No. 17751

Page 903

652 P.2d 903 The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Clyde MAESTAS, Defendant and Respondent. No. 17751. Supreme Court of Utah. July 21, 1982.

Ted Cannon, James F. Housley, David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Robert N. Parrish, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Ronald J. Yengich of O'Connell & Yengich, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

HALL, Chief Justice:

The state appeals from an order by the trial court dismissing a charge of attempted murder against defendant in spite of a jury verdict finding him guilty. The state seeks reinstatement of the jury verdict.

On February 20, 1980, defendant allegedly robbed a bank and attempted to escape in a black van. As defendant drove south on State Street at about 650 South, he passed Sergeant Cecil Throckmorton of the Salt Lake City Police Department, who had stationed his car on the island in the center of the street and was standing beside the car awaiting defendant's approach. As defendant's van passed him, Sergeant Throckmorton fired a shot with his shotgun into the front of the van in an unsuccessful attempt to disable it. A few seconds later, as he drove away from Sergeant Throckmorton, defendant allegedly leaned out of the van window holding a 38-caliber revolver and fired it at the officer. Defendant drove several blocks further before crashing into a parked car, at which time he was apprehended by other police officers.

Defendant was charged with attempted first degree murder. At the conclusion of his trial, he filed a motion to dismiss, which the court denied. The jury then deliberated, returning a verdict of guilty. On the date set for defendant's sentencing, he renewed his motion to dismiss. The court

Page 904

granted defendant's motion on the ground that "specific intent to kill could not properly be inferred from the evidence."

U.C.A., 1953, 76-5-202(1) describes the elements of first degree murder:

Criminal homicide constitutes murder in the first degree if the actor intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another under any of the following circumstances:

* * *

* * *

(d) The homicide was committed while the actor was engaged in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, aggravated robbery, robbery, rape, forcible arson, aggravated burglary, burglary, aggravated kidnapping or kidnapping.

(e) The homicide was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing an arrest by a peace officer acting under color of legal authority or for the purpose of effecting an escape from lawful custody. [Emphasis added.]

Thus, in order to find defendant guilty of attempted first degree murder, the jury was required to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that he "intentionally or knowingly" attempted to kill Sergeant Throckmorton under one of the circumstances listed above.

Defendant founds his argument for dismissal on the theory that the crime of attempted murder requires a stronger showing of intent than does the crime of murder itself. This theory derives from the common law rule that intent is a necessary element of every "attempt" crime even where the corresponding completed crime does not require intent as an element. As an example, defendant cites cases which discuss the common law rule that there is no crime of "attempted felony murder" because of the fact that felony murder requires no specific intent to kill, while an "attempt" crime must always consist of an intent to commit the corresponding completed crime accompanied by a substantial step toward realization of that crime. ¹ Defendant then attempts to carry this rule one step further by asserting that the crime of attempted first degree murder with which he is charged requires a "specific intent" beyond that which would have been required in order to prove first degree murder itself if an actual death had occurred. Defendant does not argue that the evidence concerning intent would have failed to support a first degree murder conviction in the event of actual death, but rather that such evidence fell short of establishing the stronger "specific intent" allegedly required for the crime of attempted first degree murder.

Defendant's argument ignores the fact that common law definitions of criminal behavior have no application in this jurisdiction. The criminal code of this state explicitly abolishes all common law crimes ² and our legislature has expressed its intention that its statutes be construed liberally even when they conflict with the common law. ³ U.C.A., 1953, 76-4-101(1) defines the crime of "attempt" as follows:

For purposes of this part a person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the offense, he engages in conduct constituting a substantial step toward commission of the offense. [Emphasis added.]

The above statute makes it clear that regardless of any requirements which the common law may impose concerning "attempt" crimes, Utah law requires only "the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the [completed] offense." Thus, there can be no difference between the intent required as an element of the crime of attempted first degree murder and that required for first degree murder itself.

Page 905

Even if the common law rule of attempt governed this Court's interpretation of the elements of that crime, that rule would not require the result urged by defendant here. That rule differentiates between the intent...