“wasn’t scared of him anymore.” Defendant came after Williams again, tripped over a round plate in the parking lot, and grabbed Williams around the waist. Williams again placed defendant in a headlock. Defendant shoved Williams against the tailgate of defendant’s pickup truck and stated, “If I get to my truck and get my gun, I’m going to kill you.” Williams testified that defendant made that same threat three or four times. Defendant then yelled to his stepson to get his gun; the stepson refused. After defendant complained that he was choking and could not breathe, Williams released his hold on defendant and pushed him away. The stepson ye holding offense of attempted second-degree murder exists only where defendant has specific intent to kill); State v. Huff, 469 A.2d 1251 (Me. 1984) (<HOLDING>); State v. Earp, 571 A.2d 1227 (Md. App. 1990)
holding that there was no error where one instruction did not inform the jury that in order to convict defendant of attempted murder the evidence must show that defendant had a specific intent to commit murder but where subsequent instruction did inform jury of this requirement and concluding that the instructions when read as a whole adequately informed the jury of the requirement of specific intent to kill holding defendant must act with specific intent to cause death of another in order to be convicted of attempted murder holding that attempted sexual abuse is a specific intent crime holding that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to argue based on the first districts decision in montgomery that the standard attempted manslaughterbyact instruction was fundamentally erroneous where betts was charged with attempted firstdegree premeditated murder and convicted of the necessary lesserincluded offense of attempted seconddegree murder holding that to violate a specific intent statute the defendant must act with the purpose of violating the law