Schmitt v. State

Summary

The court held that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on accident because at least slight evidence supported that Schmitt lacked the criminal intent required for malice murder and the predicate aggravated-assault offenses. The error was not harmless because the evidence of criminal intent was disputed and the trial court compounded the omission by instructing the jury to disregard accident as a key legal principle. The court reversed all five verdicts and held that the State may retry Schmitt because the evidence was legally sufficient.