## Facts

- Stanley Gentry lived with his girlfriend, Ruby Hill, in an apartment in Chicago.
- On December 13, 1983, after drinking, the two argued; during the argument Gentry poured or spilled gasoline on Hill.
- The gasoline ignited when Hill went near a kitchen gas stove; Gentry smothered the flames with a coat.
- Hill suffered severe burns, including extensive third-degree burns, and was taken to a hospital; Gentry rode with her in the ambulance.
- A responding officer testified Hill’s head, face, and arms were badly burned, Gentry was the only other person present, and no matches were found on the floor.
- At trial, Hill testified she believed the burning was accidental and expressed a desire to continue the relationship.
- The prosecution presented impeachment evidence suggesting Hill previously expressed fear of Gentry and indicated the fire was not accidental, including evidence of prior threats or violence.

## Issues

1. Whether the attempted-murder jury instructions were erroneous because they permitted conviction without requiring a finding that Gentry specifically intended to kill.
2. Whether the admission of certain hearsay statements denied Gentry a fair trial.
3. Whether prosecutorial remarks during closing argument were improper and prejudicial.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the attempted-murder conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the instructions were erroneous and prejudicial because they failed to require a finding of specific intent to kill, an essential element of attempted murder.
- The court’s disposition turned on the instructional error; the other claims were not outcome-determinative in light of the reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal attempt requires both (1) an intent to take a substantial step toward the offense and (2) a specific intent to commit the target offense.
- Attempted murder requires a specific intent to kill; mental states sufficient for completed murder (such as intent to cause great bodily harm or knowledge of a strong probability of death or great bodily harm) do not suffice for attempt.
- Jury instructions are reversible error when they authorize conviction on a legally insufficient mental state for the charged attempt offense.
- An intent-instruction error is not harmless where the evidence permits competing conclusions about whether the defendant intended to kill.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the jury was instructed in a manner that allowed an attempted-murder conviction without finding that the defendant specifically intended to kill, and the disputed evidence of intent made the error prejudicial.


People v. Gentry, 157 Ill. App. 3d 899, 510 N.E.2d 963 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1987)