Baldwin v. Commonwealth
Procedural Background: D was convicted in the Circuit Court, of attempted murder and eluding police. D appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. D appealed.
Facts:
Evidence was insufficient to find that D had specific intent to kill police officer when he pulled out onto roadway during course of traffic stop, as required to support conviction for attempted murder; officer had been standing slightly behind driver's door when D pulled out onto roadway, officer's testimony that he had to “push off the back of the car so that [the vehicle's] back wheels didn't run over [his] feet” indicated, at most, that vehicle could have run over his feet, and D did not aim his vehicle directly at officer.
Holding: The Supreme Court, G. Steven Agee, J., held that evidence was insufficient to support conviction for attempted murder. Judgment of the Court of Appeals reversed; indictment dismissed.
Analysis:
-When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, the appellate court will affirm the judgment of the circuit court unless that judgment is without evidence to support it or is plainly wrong.
-While a person may be guilty of murder though there was no actual intent to kill, he cannot be guilty of an attempt to commit murder unless he has a specific intent to kill.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment