that "in a prosecution for criminal attempt, where alternative culpable mental states will satisfy the target offense, but only one is compatible with the attempt statute, the incompatible element must be omitted from the jury instructions." Id. " 34 Examining a conviction for attempted murder under a definition of murder that allowed either an intentional or a knowing mens rea, the Illinois Appellate Court held that "the difference between intent and knowledge should not be treated as a metaphysical distinction which can be ignored. Knowledge is not intent as defined by our statutes, and the jury instructions should reflect this distinction." People v. Kroft, 133 Ill.App.3d 294, 88 Ill.Dec. 546, 478 N.E.2d 1154, 1160 (1985); see also Spradlin v. State, 569 N.E.2d 948, 950 (Ind.1991) (<HOLDING>). 1 35 In sum, though the State cites several
holding that defendants conviction    must be vacated where defendant argued that trial court committed plain error in instructing jury on nonexistent crime of attempted second degree murder holding that attempted felony murder was abolished holding that a jury could not be instructed that attempted murder can be committed knowingly holding that attempted firstdegree murder may be committed knowingly or intentionally holding that indictment for murder in the first degree charges murder by whatever means it may have been committed regardless of the theory of murder presented to the grand jury