Let's define "intent" and how it can impact your California criminal case. A key component in most criminal cases is the concept of intent.

To convict you of a crime, it's typically not enough for prosecutors to show that you committed an act; they also need to prove you acted with a particular mental state or intent.

Understanding the significance of intent and its application to your case is pivotal for building a robust defense. In California, the courts consider two primary factors when evaluating criminal charges, and intent is a crucial one.

Intent to commit a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt with either direct or circumstantial evidence.

First, the crime itself, meaning what did the accused person do?  Then, their intent, meaning what did this person think when the alleged crime took place?

Criminal intent is often required to obtain a conviction in some cases. With it, the case may meet the sufficient legal threshold to proceed with a conviction in a specific legal category.

In California, the courts seek to understand why a crime was committed by identifying the mental component behind the action, known as intent.

Criminal intent is characterized as someone's resolution or decision to carry out a crime and is defined as either general Intent or specific Intent.

An intent to commit a crime can be proven with either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Proving that a criminal defendant intended to commit a crime is often one of the most important parts of a case. It has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and this is even more difficult for specific intent crimes than for general intent crimes.

General intent involves knowingly committing a criminal act, while specific intent requires both knowledge and the intention to achieve a specific outcome. The Penal Code specifies the exact mental state the defendant must have, which can range from negligence to malice, each requiring a unique mental condition.

Understanding Intent Under California Law

Intent, in the context of California law, refers to your mental state when committing a criminal act. It answers the question: What was going through your mind when the alleged crime occurred?

In most cases, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had the requisite intent to commit the offense.

Intent is a cornerstone of criminal law, serving to differentiate between innocent actions and criminal conduct. For instance, accidentally causing harm in a crowded space may not be criminal unless there is evidence of intent to harm.

As noted, police and prosecutors prove criminal intent with either direct evidence, which directly proves the fact in question, or indirect evidence, also known as circumstantial evidence, which requires a jury to make an inference based on the evidence presented.

Law enforcement does not need direct evidence to secure a conviction. Many cases rely entirely on circumstantial evidence of a defendant's intent.

It is important to have the necessary level of intent. In legal terms, this is known as mens rea, which is Latin for "guilty mind." Many crimes require both a culpable mens rea and an actus reus, or guilty act.

Mens rea refers to the defendant's mental state at the time of the crime, and it is a crucial element in determining criminal liability. Some criminal laws require the defendant to act intentionally, while others only recklessly or even negligently. Some laws do not require any necessary mental state at all.

Generally, state criminal laws distinguish between different types of culpable mental states, such as the following:

• Intent or purpose.
• Knowledge.
• Recklessness.
• Negligence.

Prosecutors find it more difficult to prove that someone acted intentionally, while it is relatively easy to show that a defendant acted negligently. In either case, the burden of proof is overcome by direct or circumstantial evidence.

General Intent vs. Specific Intent

California law recognizes two primary types of intent in criminal cases: general intent and specific intent. These classifications determine how prosecutors must argue their case and influence the strategies your defense attorney may use.

General Intent

General intent applies to crimes where the prosecution only needs to prove that you intended to perform the act itself, regardless of any further outcome or result. You don't need to have intended a specific consequence; it's enough that the act was done willfully or knowingly.

Examples of California crimes of general intent include:

• Battery (Penal Code 242): In a battery case, the prosecutor doesn't need to prove that you intended to cause harm, only that you intentionally made physical contact with another person in a harmful or offensive manner.
• Driving Under the Influence (Vehicle Code 23152): To prove DUI, the prosecution doesn't have to show you intended to endanger others, only that you knowingly operated a vehicle while under the influence.

Specific Intent

Specific intent crimes require the prosecution to prove you had a further purpose or goal beyond merely performing the act. This means you not only committed the act but also did so with the intent to achieve a particular outcome. Examples of specific intent crimes include:

• Burglary (Penal Code 459): To convict someone of burglary, the prosecutor must prove that the person entered a building with the specific intent to commit theft or another felony inside.
• Forgery (Penal Code 470): For forgery, the prosecution must demonstrate that you created or altered a document with the specific intent to defraud another person or entity.
• Robbery (Penal Code 211): Robbery requires proof that the defendant acted not just intentionally but with the intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently. Prosecutors must prove this mental element beyond a reasonable doubt.

How Does Intent Impact Your Criminal Case?

Proving intent is usually the most challenging aspect of any criminal case. If the prosecution cannot prove the specific intent required by the statute, you cannot be convicted of that offense.

For example, if you entered a building but didn't intend to commit a crime inside, you may not be guilty of burglary, even if other suspicious circumstances are present.

For general intent crimes, the focus shifts to whether you knowingly performed the act. Even so, there are defenses to show you lacked the required mental state-for example if you acted under duress or involuntarily.

How Can You Challenge Intent in a California Criminal Case?

A skilled California criminal defense attorney can use the concept of intent to undermine the prosecution's case and create reasonable doubt. Here are some common strategies:

• Arguing Lack of Knowledge or Awareness: If your attorney can show that you didn't know the nature of your actions or didn't act intentionally, it could negate general intent. For example, mistakenly consuming alcohol before driving may impact the intent element in a DUI case.
• Demonstrating Mistake of Fact: A mistake of fact can challenge specific intent. For instance, if you were accused of theft but believed the property you took was rightfully yours, this could negate the intent to steal.
• Establishing Duress or Coercion: If someone forced you to commit a crime against your will, your attorney might argue you lacked the intent to act of your own volition.
• Highlighting Ambiguities in Evidence: Intent is often proven circumstantially, meaning it's inferred from your actions or statements. A skilled defense attorney can scrutinize the prosecution's evidence for inconsistencies or insufficient proof of your mental state.
• Pointing to Intoxication or Mental Incapacity: In some cases, intoxication or mental incapacity can be used to show you lacked the specific intent required for a crime.

For additional information, contact our California criminal defense law firm, Eisner Gorin LLP, based in Los Angeles.

Related Content:

• What is Criminal Intent?
• CALCRIM No. 1600 Robbery
• CALCRIM No. 1700 Burglary