Summary 2010 WY 74

Summary of Decision issued June 3, 2010

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Gentilini v. State

Citation: 2010 WY 74

Docket Number: S-09-0078

Appeal from the District Court of Washakie County, the Honorable Robert E. Skar, Judge.

Representing Gentilini: Diane Lozano, Wyoming State Public Defender; Tina Kerin, Appellate Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Graham Smith, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Gentilini challenged his conviction of attempted first degree murder. He contended the district court erred when it denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal. He also asserted that the jury instruction specifying the elements of attempted first degree murder was erroneous. Gentilini had a loud argument with his girlfriend and Ellsworth intervened to ask them to stop. Then Ellsworth and Gentilini had a short but heated dispute. The next day, Ellsworth and Gentilini had an altercation which included Gentilini threatening with and attempting to run over Ellsworth with his car. Ellsworth called police who were talking to him when he saw Gentilini driving nearby. When the police stopped Gentilini, he had a loaded rifle in his vehicle.

Motion for judgment of acquittal: Gentilini contended that the State had not presented sufficient evidence of a “substantial step” as required by § 6-1-1301. Gentilini sought support from Reilly v. State, Guy v. State and Cohen v. State. The Court stated the cases were of limited value. It reviewed the context of the possession of the loaded rifle. Most damning to Gentilini was his statement to the police that he “lost it, went home, got his gun and came back to kill him.” That unequivocal statement of intent to kill was relevant in evaluating whether the conduct satisfied the substantial step requirement.
Jury instruction: Gentilini suggested the jury instruction should have included a statement reciting which of his actions fulfilled the elements of each crime. The Court has never required such a statement in a jury instruction and he did not request such an instruction at trial.

Conclusion: Taken as a whole, a jury could conclude that the acts that Gentilini completed before being apprehended constituted a “substantial step” toward the crime of committing first degree murder. The district court adequately informed the jury of the elements of each crime and the circumstances that had to exist in order to find Gentilini guilty of those crimes.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2frkcpj .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]