Criminal intent, also known as mens rea, refers to the mental state required to convict a party to a crime. In addition to a criminal offence or actus reus, criminal intent is one of the fundamental aspects of criminal law. If a person intends to kill or injure someone, but inadvertently injures or kills a third party while attempting to commit the crime, the criminal intent of the accused is transferred to the third party. According to this doctrine, called the criminal murder doctrine, the criminal intent associated with the underlying crime can be transferred to the intent to kill, which is necessary to characterize murder as murder. [State v. Julius, 185 W. Va. 422, 431 (W. Va. 1991)] Criminal intent is a necessary component of a “conventional” crime and involves the conscious decision of one party to injure or steal another. It is one of the three categories of “mens rea”, which establish guilt in criminal proceedings. There are several shades of criminal intent that can be applied in situations ranging from direct intent to spontaneous acts. The specific intent required to uphold a conviction varies from crime to crime and state to state.
In states that follow the Model Penal Code (MPC) or use the MPC terminology, criminal intent is divided into four categories: In criminal law, criminal intent, also known as mens rea, is one of two elements that must be proven to obtain a conviction (the other is the actual act or actus reus). Some jurisdictions rank intent more in general and specific. It is sometimes difficult to make a clear distinction between these intentions, but the Supreme Court has held that general intent is vaguely consistent with knowledge of a crime, while specific intent refers to the purpose behind the commission of the crime. n. spiritual desire and willingness to act in a certain way, including the desire not to participate. Intent is a crucial element in determining whether certain acts were criminal. Occasionally, a judge or jury may conclude that “there was no criminal intent.” Example: Lack of intent may reduce a charge of manslaughter to a finding of reckless murder or another less serious crime. Common law criminal intent, ordered by order of guilt, is intent, specific intent and general intent.
Laws and cases use different words to indicate the appropriate level of intent for the offense, so below is a basic description of the definitions of intent adopted by many jurisdictions. Instead, a minority of states choose to follow common law doctrines of malevolence. These jurisdictions determine responsibility by categorizing the type of malice that accompanies a particular criminal act between: Sherree decides she wants to kill her husband with a handgun. When Sherree goes to the local gun store to buy the handgun, her husband is distracted and walks past his car. Sherree brakes reflexively, but unfortunately, she can`t avoid hitting and killing her husband. Sherree cannot be prosecuted for criminal murder in this case. Although Sherree expressed the intent to kill, the intent to kill did not exist when she committed the criminal act of beating her husband with his vehicle. In fact, Sherree tried to avoid beating her husband at the time he was killed. Therefore, in this case, the match between the act and the intent is missing, and Sherree is not guilty of criminal murder. In Holloway v. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the word “intent” in a federal statute can mean “unconditional intent,” “conditional intent,” or both of a person, depending on the context and purpose of the law by Congress.
[5] The Act also divides criminal intent into “general” and “specific” intent. The evidence of particular intent is the same as proof of intentional criminal intent, since it must be shown that the accused intended not only to commit a culpable act, but also the consequences of the act. An action taken with a specific intention requires the intention to achieve a certain result. The general intention, on the other hand, presupposes only the intention to commit the unlawful act. However, if there is no confession, the prosecutor usually tries to convince the judge or jury of an accused`s criminal intent through findings. They will comb through all known circumstances, including the accused`s behaviour and words or writings, as well as testimony from witness statements that can confirm the defendant`s actions and perceived mental state at the time of the offence. The Model Penal Code divides criminal intent into four states of mind, listed in order of guilt: intentional, conscious, reckless and negligent. Holloway was charged and convicted of the federal crime of hijacking a car “with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm.” Holloway admitted to hijacking his car at gunpoint, but argued he only intended to use his weapon “if one of the drivers gave him a hard time.” The unconditional intention was to divert the car without harming the driver. The conditional intent was to kidnap and injure the driver if he became uncooperative. Look at the example in section 4 “Knowingly Example” where Victor shoots a crowd of subway passengers and kills Monica. Change the example and imagine that the metro has only three passengers.
Victor fires lightly between them, but the bullet bounces off one of the seats and hits Monica, who kills her. Victor prefers to act recklessly than knowingly in this situation. Victor`s knowledge and awareness of the risk of injury or death when firing a firearm into a three-passenger subway car is likely considerable.