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
- Whether “attempted manslaughter” based on reckless manslaughter is a cognizable offense under Alabama law given the intent requirement for attempt.
- Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on reckless endangerment as a lesser-included offense supported by the evidence.
- 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.