Background
Following a bench trial, Luis Aguilar was convicted of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated domestic battery, and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon for attacking his former girlfriend, Emilia E. The circuit court merged the counts and sentenced Aguilar to 14 years in prison for attempted first-degree murder.
Emilia testified that Aguilar woke her by striking her thigh with a sledgehammer, then stabbed her in the face with an eight-inch knife and repeatedly stabbed her arm and back. The facial stabbing fractured her orbital wall and later required reconstructive surgery. During the attack and while Emilia barricaded herself in a bathroom, Aguilar repeatedly said that he wanted her to die and threatened to ensure that she took her last breath. On appeal, Aguilar argued that the State failed to prove a specific intent to kill and asked the court to reduce his conviction to aggravated domestic battery.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Aguilar specifically intended to kill Emilia. His forceful stabbing near her eye, repeated stabbings elsewhere on her body, use of deadly weapons, and repeated statements that she would die supported that finding.
The court rejected Aguilar’s arguments that Emilia’s wounds were not life-threatening, that he had opportunities to kill her but did not, and that his later call to his father showed a lack of murderous intent. Abandonment after the elements of attempted murder are complete is not a defense, and calling his father—rather than 911—after Emilia played dead did not negate his intent during the attack. The court also distinguished People v. Reynolds because Aguilar used the knife in a deadly fashion, caused a serious orbital fracture, and displayed no alternative purpose merely to terrorize Emilia into making a confession.
Key Takeaways
- Specific intent to kill may be inferred from the character of an attack, the use of a deadly weapon, the severity of the injuries, and conduct naturally tending to cause death or great bodily harm.
- Aguilar’s repeated death threats during the stabbings supplied direct evidence of his intent to kill.
- A victim need not suffer life-threatening injuries for the evidence to support attempted murder, and later abandonment does not undo a completed criminal attempt.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates that an attempted-murder conviction may rest on the combination of a deadly attack and contemporaneous threats even when the victim survives without major internal injuries. It also shows that post-attack efforts suggesting concern for the victim do not necessarily negate intent formed and demonstrated during the assault.
The disposition was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).