Does attempted murder require intent to kill or is knowing conduct sufficient? State v. Casey Explained

In State v. Casey, the Utah Supreme Court resolved a critical question about the mental state required for attempted murder convictions, clarifying that intentional conduct is required rather than merely knowing conduct.

Background and Facts

Michael Casey was in a relationship with Tresa Franz when, during an evening of drinking, he became belligerent and threatened to kill her. While at a friend’s house, Casey retrieved a handgun from his vehicle and pointed it at Franz’s neck. Later, as they were leaving, Casey pointed the gun at Franz’s head and pulled the trigger, but the weapon misfired. He then fired a shot at her feet before pointing the gun at her head again. Franz grabbed his arm and jumped from the moving vehicle as Casey fired another shot. The jury convicted Casey of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and domestic violence in the presence of a child.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether attempted murder could be committed with a knowing mental state rather than requiring an intentional mental state. The trial court’s jury instructions stated that attempted murder could be committed “intentionally or knowingly,” mirroring the language of Utah’s murder statute. Casey argued this was error because the attempt statute requires proof of intent to commit the underlying offense.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court examined Utah’s attempt statute, which requires that conduct constitute “a substantial step toward commission of the offense” that is “strongly corroborative of the actor’s intent to commit the offense.” The court distinguished Utah’s statute from the Model Penal Code, noting that while the MPC allows knowing attempts, Utah’s legislature deliberately chose language requiring intentional conduct. The court held that attempted murder requires proof that the defendant acted intentionally, overruling contrary dicta from prior decisions.

Practice Implications

Despite finding instructional error, the court affirmed Casey’s conviction under the plain error doctrine. The error was not obvious given confusion from prior case law, and no harm resulted because the evidence showed Casey acted intentionally. The court noted that future jury instructions should clearly inform juries that intent to kill is required for attempted murder. This decision provides important clarity for prosecutors and defense attorneys handling attempted murder cases, requiring careful attention to the distinction between knowing and intentional conduct in jury instructions.