Published by Table Of Contents
Specific Intent Crimes Explained
According to Legal Flip, specific intent in criminal law pertains to the mental state, known as mens rea, that an individual possesses when committing a crime [1].
Specific intent requires not merely intending to commit an act, but intending to violate the law itself—a distinction that imposes a higher prosecutorial burden.
Prosecutors must prove the defendant’s conscious objective to engage in illegal conduct separately from the physical act, not merely establish that the act occurred.
A person cannot be convicted merely for committing an act; instead, prosecutors must affirmatively demonstrate that the defendant possessed the required mental state at the time of the offense.
This dual requirement—proving both the act (actus reus) and the mental element (mens rea)—protects defendants by creating a more stringent standard of proof.
However, the State can often only show the accused’s actions and/or inactions to prove a specific intent crime.
Specific Intent vs General Intent
Understanding the difference between specific and general intent crimes is crucial in criminal law.
Specific Intent Crimes
Specific intent crimes are those in which the prosecution must show the perpetrator has a particular purpose or objective in mind when committing the criminal act. In other words, not only do they intend to commit the act, but they also intend for a certain outcome due to their actions.
A prime example of a specific intent crime is Penal Code 187 PC murder, where prosecutors must demonstrate that the accused both killed someone and intended to kill them.
Specific intent crimes span both felony and misdemeanor classifications. For instance, while murder is a felony specific intent crime, theft can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the value of the property involved and the jurisdiction.
General Intent Crimes
Conversely, general intent crimes do not necessitate a specific intent to cause harm or achieve a particular result. Instead, prosecutors only need to prove that the act occurred or that the accused intended to commit the criminal act itself, without a specific intended result. California Vehicle Code 23152 VC DUI is an example of a general intent crime because prosecutors do not need to demonstrate intent to drive drunk—only that the accused drove willfully and happened to be intoxicated at the time.
Penal Code 240 PC simple assault is another general intent crime, where prosecutors must show that the accused willfully attempted to exert force on a person, without the need to prove intent to harm.
The Role Of Actus Reus and Mens Rea
Actus reus refers to the physical act or unlawful conduct, while mens rea pertains to the accused’s mental state when committing the act. In general intent crimes, prosecutors must prove actus reus—that the accused acted willfully to commit the physical act of the crime.
Statutes frequently encode the required intent through specific language. Terms such as “knowingly,” “purposely,” “willfully,” “recklessly,” and “intent to defraud” serve as explicit markers of specific intent requirements. Understanding this statutory language is crucial for identifying whether a crime is one of specific or general intent.
The interplay between actus reus and mens rea explains why courts employ specific methods to evaluate intent and determine whether the burden of proof has been satisfied.
How Courts Determine Intent
Courts employ multiple methods to establish whether a defendant possessed the requisite specific intent.
These include applying the reasonable person test—asking whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have formed the intent—and examining both direct and circumstantial evidence.
Inferences drawn from planning, premeditation, and the defendant’s actions before and after the offense often prove critical in establishing intent.
Examples of Specific Intent Crimes
In criminal law, assault is typically defined by statute, and the term battery is not commonly used. However, in civil law, assault, and battery are distinct concepts often defined separately.
In criminal law, assault can be described as an intentional act where a person knowingly causes or attempts to cause physical harm to another. For instance, if John punches someone in a bar because they refuse to give up their seat, he could be charged with assault because he intended to harm the other person by punching them.
In civil law, assault can be seen as an attempt to commit a battery or as an act that causes someone to fear they will suffer physical harm. For example, if John swings at someone in a bar but misses, he could face criminal and civil charges for assault. However, he could not be charged with civil battery unless he actually hit the person. This shows that criminal assault often involves causing or attempting to cause physical harm, while civil assault is more about attempting to cause harm (with civil battery referring to the actual harm caused).
Attempt
Attempt is a criminal offense that requires an act done with the specific intent to commit a crime, even if the actual crime is not completed. Attempt crimes can include attempted murder, attempted burglary, attempted kidnapping, attempted assault, attempted robbery, and others.
For example, if John shoots at Matt several times while yelling threats but misses, he could be charged with attempted murder.
Originally, burglary at common law involved breaking and entering into another person’s property at night with the intent to commit a felony inside. Today, most jurisdictions have updated their laws to include burglary without the requirement of it being nighttime. Generally, entering a property with the intent to commit any crime can constitute burglary.
For instance, if John enters a house through an open window and steals a TV without the owner’s permission, he could be charged with burglary.
Conspiracy is a crime that involves an agreement between two or more individuals to commit a crime, along with a concrete step taken towards achieving that goal. Both parties must have the specific intent to enter into the agreement and to carry out the crime.
For example, if John and Ted agree to rob a bank, and John buys masks for the robbery while Ted drives him to the bank, they could both be charged with conspiracy to rob the bank, even before entering the bank.
Embezzlement
Embezzlement occurs when someone in lawful possession of another person’s property fraudulently converts that property for their own use. This crime requires the specific intent to defraud the owner.
For instance, if John agrees to watch Matt’s bike while he’s away but then sells it without Matt’s consent, John could be charged with embezzlement.
Theft
Theft is a specific intent crime that requires not only the taking of someone else’s property but also the intent to deprive the owner of it permanently.
For example, if John takes a wallet from a store shelf intending to keep it permanently, he could be charged with theft because he had the specific intent to deprive the owner of that property.
Forgery
Forgery involves creating, altering, or possessing a false document with the specific intent to commit fraud or defraud another person.
If John creates a fake check intending to use it to withdraw money from a bank account, he could be charged with forgery.
Lewd or Lascivious Acts with Minors
This crime requires specific intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire while engaging in sexual conduct with a minor.
The prosecution must prove not only that the act occurred but that it was done with sexual intent.
Can You Commit a Crime Without Intent?
Certain types of offenses can be committed even without an intent to violate the law. These are known as strict liability crimes, where actions are deemed criminal regardless of the perpetrator’s awareness of breaking the law. A classic example is statutory rape, which is still considered a crime even if the lack of legal age was not known, discussed, or disclosed.
Conversely, in specific intent crimes, the absence of the required mental state is a standard and powerful defense strategy. If a defendant can demonstrate they lacked the specific intent required by the statute, they may be acquitted even if they committed the physical act.
Related Articles:
Get a Free Lawsuit Evaluation With Our Lawyers
The Litigation Group at Schmidt & Clark, LLP is an experienced team of trial lawyers that focuses on the representation of plaintiffs in lawsuits. We are handling individual litigation nationwide and currently accepting new legal challenges in all 50 states.
If you or a loved one was involved with these matters, you should contact our law firm immediately for a free case evaluation. You may be entitled to a settlement by filing a suit and we can help.
References:
1. https://www.egattorneys.com/specific-intent-crimes