What Is the Legal Definition of Transferred Intent

Therefore, in this case, we can transfer the intent and Daphne would be held responsible for entering the field. The vast majority of transferred intent cases involve people missing their true target with firearms or launched projectiles of any kind, making these cases referred to as «bad aiming» cases. However, if Claudius tries to kill Hamlet by poisoning and his wife drinks the deadly cup instead, then the doctrine of figurative intent could allow Claudius to find his wife`s death as guilty as it would have been if he had followed Hamlet in the murder. The same goes for arson, sexual assault, theft and any other crime: if the accused commits the crime and there is a victim, the accused can be punished, regardless of who the victim was or should be. n. In both criminal and tort law, the law transfers intent to actual harm when the intent to cause harm to one person results in harm to another person instead of the purpose. Examples: a) With malice, Nate Nogood intends to shoot his girlfriend and misses her, and the bullet hits a passerby and kills him. Nogood can be charged with first-degree murder because the intent to commit murder is transferred to the actual crime. b) Steve Swinger takes a hit at Harvey Hasgood, his hated enemy, misses Hasgood and hits Hasgood`s date, Teri Truehart, in the nose and breeze.

Truehart can not only sue Swinger for damages for the attack, but also seek punitive damages because the malice against Hasgood is associated with the blow to Truehart. Now that we have discussed the six intentional offenses, we will briefly examine the doctrine of transferred intent. Transferred intent: A legal doctrine that allows for a shift from an intentional offense that the defendant attempted to commit to an intentional offense actually committed by the defendant. In U.S. criminal law, the transferred intent is sometimes explained by the statement that «intent follows the bullet.» That is, the intent to shoot Person A would apply even if the bullet kills an unintentional victim, Person B (see mens rea). Thus, the intention is transferred between the victims. However, intent is only transferred between damages of a similar nature. [2] For example, if the defendant shoots «Person A» to kill «A», but misses the bullet and instead hits a vase, causing it to break, it is not presumed that the defendant intended to break the vase. Indeed, destruction of property is a different type of damage from that envisaged by the defendant. The underlying reason for this distinction is that the defendant has only one intention.

If the law were to assume that the defendant intended to destroy property, it would impose on him an intention that he never had – he would now have both the intention to kill and the intention to destroy property. On the other hand, if the accused intends to kill one person but ends up killing another, there is always only one intention – the intention to kill. [3] However, if the offence involves aggravating factors based on the identity of the victim (e.g., police officer, witness or protected class), the factors must be proven that they actually occurred in order to impose a heavier sentence. [4] For example, if the accused intends to kill a police officer in a jurisdiction where he or she faces the death penalty and instead kills a civilian, the death penalty cannot be imposed unless another aggravating circumstance has actually occurred. The truth is, once you answer «no» to the first question, you don`t need to ask the second question at all. In any case, since Daphne`s intended act of shooting her own dog would not have resulted in a criminal offence, there can be no transfer of intent and Daphne will not be liable for any offence against Marty. In general, criminal courts have limited the application of the doctrine of delegated intent to situations of a similar nature. For example, if Gus tries to shoot Bill, but instead breaks Rick`s window and punches a hole in his wall, it`s unlikely that Gus will be convicted of malicious trespassing. His intent to harm Bill is of a different nature from that of harming property and, therefore, it is unlikely that intent will be transferred. Transferred intent is a concept that allows guilt to follow the action, regardless of who the victim is.2 min spent reading Transferred intent (or transferred mens rea or figurative malice, in English law) is a legal doctrine that holds that if the intent to hurt a person inadvertently results in a second person injured instead, The author will continue to be held liable. To be held legally liable, a court must generally prove that the perpetrator had criminal intent, that is, that he knew or ought to have known that someone else would be harmed by his actions and that he wanted this harm to occur.

For example, if a murderer intends to kill John but accidentally kills George instead, John`s intent is transferred to George, and the murderer is considered a criminal. Transferred intent is a concept that allows guilt to follow the action, regardless of who the victim is. This way, if Gus tries to kill Bill by shooting him, but misses and kills Rick, Gus could be held criminally responsible for Rick`s death just as he would have been for Bill`s death if he had succeeded with his intent. The doctrine of transferred intent is borrowed from tort law and applied in the criminal law context. Hire the best business lawyers and save up to 60% on legal fees Transferred intent is a doctrine that allows the defendant to be held liable for an intentional offense he intended to commit against A, but accidentally committed against B. In other words, if the defendant intended to commit bodily harm, false detention, trespassing, or misdemeanor against A, but by attempting to commit one of these offenses against A, inadvertently commits the offense against B, the defendant may be held liable for the offense against B. See Talmage v. Smith, 59 N.W.

656 (Mich. 1894). The transferred intent also applies to tort law. [1] In tort law, there are generally five areas in which the transferred intent applies: bodily harm, assault, forcible confinement, trespassing, and trespassing on personal property.