At appellant’s trial for attempted murder and three other felony counts, the jury was given conflicting instructions on the required state of mind for attempted murder. They were instructed with CALJIC 8.66, which defined murder as an unlawful killing with malice aforethought and clearly informed the jury that attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill. They were then instructed with CALJIC 8.11, which informed them that implied malice was sufficient. The appellate court here reversed the conviction for attempted murder. The court should not have instructed the jury with CALJIC 8.11. The error was not harmless because the prosecutor also argued to the jury that implied malice was sufficient to sustain a conviction. Further, the jury expressed confusion about intent.