Middle English agreement, from Anglo-French, from late Latin intentus, from Latin, act of expansion, from the unconditional intention of the intendant: the expected result of a person of the consequence of his actions. 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 also classify intent as general and specific. It is sometimes difficult to make a clear distinction between these types of intent, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the general intent vaguely corresponds to knowledge of a crime, while the specific intent relates to the objective behind the commission. On a purely subjective basis, A intended to make B`s house uninhabitable, so a reasonably large fire was required. The reasonable person would have foreseen a probability that people would be at risk of injury. Everyone in the house, neighbors, passers-by and members of the fire department would be in danger. The court therefore assesses the degree of probability that B or another person may be in the house at that time of night. The safer the reasonable person would have been, the more justified it is to imply a sufficient desire to turn what would otherwise have been recklessness into the intent to depict the crime of murder. But if the degree of probability is lower, the court concludes only that it is proven reckless. Some states once had a criminal murder rule: a death that occurred while committing a crime automatically awarded enough mens rea for the murder. This rule has been largely abolished, and direct proof of the required mental components is now required.
Therefore, for each modified crime, courts in most states use a hybrid intent test that combines subjective and objective elements. It was theatrical: he stood on stage, an audience looked at him with deliberate expectation and wondered about his decision. In California, it is generally believed that the defendant intended to perform an act he committed. However, in the case of offences requiring a certain intention, that intention must be proved beyond any doubt. For example, in a conviction for attempted murder that requires proof of a particular intent to kill, a prosecutor cannot rely on the fact that the accused committed the act of murder to presume that the defendant acted with intent to kill. The accused, for example, may have acted in self-defence and thus denied the necessary intent, because the murder was committed out of protection and not out of a desire to take the lives of the victims. Criminal law and tort law share the concept of transferred intent. For example, if A fires a gun at B with the intention of hitting B, but the bullet hits C, the intention to strike is transferred to the act of shooting C and provides the necessary intent for a criminal conviction or civil act. According to the criminal doctrine of transferred intent, it is assumed that intent follows the criminal act, regardless of who turns out to be the victim. According to the tort doctrine of transferred intent, the defendant is liable for the financial damage of the unintentional victim.
In criminal law, intent is a subjective state of mind that must accompany the acts of certain crimes to constitute harm. A more formal legal term, usually synonymous, is scientific: intent or knowledge of the misconduct. General intent refers to the intention to do what the law prohibits. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to suffer the damage or the exact result that occurred. Thus, in most states, an accused who kills a person with a firearm while drunk will be guilty of second-degree murder to the extent that the defendant does not know he has a firearm. The law will conclude that the accused had the general intention to kill. She knew that Alessandro had no knife and that he had gone ahead without hostile intent; But beyond that, she didn`t know anything. According to Article 8(b), the jury therefore has a great deal of leeway in the application of a hybrid test to imply intent or foresight (for the purpose of recklessness) on the basis of all the evidence. In Holloway v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the word « intent » in federal law can mean either « unconditional intent, » « conditional intent, » or both, depending on the context and purpose of Congress.  For example, A, a jealous woman, discovers that her husband is having a sexual affair with B.
Since she only wants to kick B out of the neighborhood, she goes to B`s house one night, pours gasoline and lights up the front door. B died in the resulting fire. A is shocked and horrified. It didn`t occur to him that B could be physically in danger, and there was no conscious plan in his head to hurt B when the fire started. But if A`s behavior is analyzed, B`s death must be intentional. If A really wanted to avoid any possibility of injury to B, she wouldn`t have set it on fire. Or, if it wasn`t an option to verbally warn B to leave, she would have had to wait until B was seen to leave the house before lighting the fire. As it stood, she waited until the night when it was more likely that B would be at home and fewer people would be there to set off the alarm. .