## Facts

- Chinda Urbina Stennet argued with Vicki Pearson at Pearson’s trailer on April 19, 1988.
- After leaving, Stennet returned shortly thereafter and fired a shotgun twice at the trailer.
- No one was physically injured, but shotgun pellets struck the trailer.
- Stennet was indicted for attempted murder.
- The trial court instructed on attempted murder and “attempted manslaughter,” but refused requested instructions on attempted second-degree assault and reckless endangerment.
- The jury convicted Stennet of attempted manslaughter, and the court sentenced her to 10 years’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether “attempted manslaughter” based on reckless manslaughter is a cognizable offense under Alabama law given the intent requirement for attempt.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on reckless endangerment as a lesser-included offense supported by the evidence.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by refusing an instruction on second-degree assault when the defense did not identify the applicable statutory subsection(s).

## Decision

- The court held that attempted manslaughter predicated on recklessness is not a recognized offense in Alabama because attempt requires intent to commit a specific offense, which is incompatible with recklessness.
- The court held the trial court erred in failing to instruct on reckless endangerment because firing into an occupied trailer could support a finding of reckless conduct creating a substantial risk of serious physical injury.
- The court found no reversible error regarding the refusal to instruct on second-degree assault because the defense failed to specify which subsection(s) of the assault statute the instruction should track.
- The conviction was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Alabama attempt liability requires an intent to commit a specific offense and an overt act toward its commission. (Ala. Code § 13A-4-2(a))
- A defendant cannot “attempt” to commit an offense defined by recklessness; “intentional” and “reckless” mental states are inconsistent for attempt purposes when the target offense’s defining element is recklessness. (Ala. Code § 13A-6-3(a)(1))
- A lesser-included offense instruction is required when there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for the jury to convict on the lesser offense.
- Reckless endangerment is supported where evidence permits a finding that the defendant recklessly engaged in conduct creating a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. (Ala. Code § 13A-6-24)
- To preserve error on refusal of a requested charge tied to a multi-subsection statute, the proponent must specify the subsection(s) applicable to the requested instruction.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed because Alabama law does not permit conviction for attempted reckless manslaughter and because the jury should have been instructed on reckless endangerment as a supported lesser alternative; the assault-instruction claim failed due to lack of specificity in the defense request.


Stennet v. State, 564 So. 2d 95 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)