Caseflicks

Supreme Court of Virginia • 1922

Thacker v. Commonwealth

134 Va. 767 | 114 S.E. 504 | 1922 Va. LEXIS 197

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that attempted murder requires proof of a specific intent to kill; recklessly shooting at a light near an occupied bed, without proof of that purpose, is not enough.

Background

John Thacker and two companions became intoxicated at a church festival in Alleghany County. Late that night, they passed a tent where Mrs. J. A. Ratrie, her children, and a servant were sleeping. A lamp stood near the head of Mrs. Ratrie’s bed. After the men spoke with her and left the tent, Thacker said he would “shoot that God-damned light out” and fired three shots toward it. Two bullets entered the tent; one passed through the head of the bed, narrowly missing Mrs. Ratrie and her baby.

Thacker did not know Mrs. Ratrie or anyone in the tent and testified that he meant only to shoot the light, not to harm anyone. He attributed his conduct to intoxication and expressed regret. A jury convicted him of attempting to murder Mrs. Ratrie and fixed his punishment at two years’ imprisonment. On writ of error, Thacker challenged the trial court’s refusal to set aside the verdict as contrary to law and evidence.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the evidence established the specific intent to kill Mrs. Ratrie required for a conviction of attempted murder.

Holding

No. The evidence showed that Thacker intentionally shot at the lamp, but it did not prove beyond the required factual inference that he specifically intended to murder Mrs. Ratrie.

Reasoning

An attempt consists of two essential elements: a specific intent to commit the charged crime and a direct but unsuccessful act toward its commission. The act must go far enough to begin carrying out the intended crime, rather than remain merely preparatory.

The law may infer an actor’s intent to the extent that the act itself realizes that intent, but it cannot presume an additional intent that the evidence does not support. Thus, use of a weapon capable of causing death does not by itself establish an intent to murder.

Because attempted murder is an offense defined by an act coupled with a particular intent, the Commonwealth had to prove the particular intent to kill as a fact. That intent could be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence, but it could not be supplied by a legal presumption based solely on the dangerous character of Thacker’s conduct.

The court distinguished completed murder from attempted murder. A person may commit murder without an actual purpose to kill—for example, through conduct so reckless or malicious that a death is attributable to malice. But an attempt to murder requires a specific intent to take life; conduct that would have been murder had death resulted does not automatically amount to attempted murder when no death occurs.

Thacker’s statement that he intended to shoot out the light, together with the absence of any prior acquaintance or hostility toward Mrs. Ratrie, left the proof short of an intent to kill her. Although firing through the tent and into the head of the bed could qualify as a direct act toward the charged offense, the evidence did not warrant finding that the shot was fired with the specific purpose of murdering Mrs. Ratrie.