Specific Intent vs. General Intent

Did you know that your intentions behind a crime can determine the severity of your punishment? Crimes are categorized as either specific intent or general intent crimes, depending on whether the perpetrator intended a certain outcome. 

If you have been convicted of any type of crime, you need the assistance of Attorney David D. White. 

What is the Difference Between Specific Intent and General Intent?

In a specific intent crime, the actor intends for certain results to take place. On the other hand, in a general intent crime, the actor intends their actions but does not have specific results in mind. 

In a general intent crime, the prosecution is required to prove that the defendant committed the illegal act, not that the offender necessarily knew that their behavior would cause harm or other consequences. 

In contrast, in a specific intent crime, the prosecution must prove that the defendant either intended a specific consequence or should have been reasonably certain that the behavior would cause a particular result.

What are the Two Components of Crimes?

Every crime has two components: actus reus and mens rea. Actus reus is the act itself. Mens rea refers to the state of mind that a defendant had while committing a crime. The term comes from Latin, translating as “guilty mind.” 

Put together, actus reus and mens rea determine specific criminal charges. For example, if you kill someone (actus reus) and the killing was premeditated and intentional (mens rea), then you would be charged with first-degree murder. You should face lesser charges if the intent was different and the killing was not premeditated.

Regarding mens rea, Texas defines four culpable mental states from most to least intent:

• Intentionally: a person acts intentionally when he strives to cause a particular result
• Knowingly: a person acts knowingly when the individual is aware that such conduct is reasonably certain to cause a result
• Reckless: a person acts recklessly when he disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur. The risk must be a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use under the same circumstances. 
• Criminal negligence: a person acts with criminal negligence when he or she has no conscious awareness of the risk of certain actions when there should have been. The risk must be a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under the same circumstances.

Specific intent crimes require that the defendant had acted intentionally or knowingly. Conversely, general intent crimes do not require a particular mens rea.

Examples of Specific Intent Crimes

Specific intent crimes require that the defendant acted intentionally or knowingly.

Examples of specific intent crimes:

• First-Degree Murder
• Arson
• Burglary
• Embezzlement
• Forgery

Examples of General Intent Crimes

General intent crimes require that the prosecution prove that the accused commissioned the act. There is no requirement for the perpetrator’s state of mind.

Examples of general intent crimes:

• Assault
• Driving while intoxicated (DWI)
• False imprisonment
• Involuntary manslaughter
• Rape

Intent vs. Motive

Many people do not realize that intent and motive are distinct. While a person’s state of mind (mens rea) is important to show in a criminal case, motive does not need to be proven. 

Motive is defined as the reason a person does something. A person’s motive can fuel the crime. For instance, a person may burn down a building, known as arson, to gain revenge on another person. The person’s intent is to start a fire in order to burn down another person’s personal property. The person’s intent to burn down another’s personal property (mens rea) is used to satisfy his or her need to get revenge (motive).

While motive can help a prosecutor show that someone committed a crime, it is intent that they must prove to obtain a conviction. 

Affirmative Defenses to Crimes

Defendants often introduce evidence that reduces or eliminates their culpability in a case. This is known as an affirmative defense.

If you have been convicted of a crime, there are a number of affirmative defenses that may be available to you:

Insanity

An insanity defense can be utilized if the actor, at the time of the offense, suffered from a severe mental illness or defect, causing the individual to not know that his or her actions were wrong. An insanity plea is rarely used.   

Mistake of Fact

If the actor had a mistaken belief during the commission of the crime, then this defense could be a good option for the defendant. For example, a mistake of fact defense could be used if a defendant shot someone but had reason to believe that the gun was not loaded.  However, the actor might still be charged with a lesser crime.

Intoxication

While voluntary intoxication does not qualify as a defense to a crime, evidence of temporary insanity caused by inebriation can mitigate a crime from a specific intent to a general intent crime.

Duress

If the actor committed the crime because he was compelled to do so by threat of bodily harm or death, then a duress defense may acquit the defendant. 

However, a defense is unavailable if the actor intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly placed himself in the particular situation. 

The defense is also unavailable if a person was persuaded or commanded by a spouse. 

Entrapment

If a law enforcement agent, such as a police officer, forces the actor to commit a crime, this would be a viable defense. 

However, if the officer’s conduct just allowed the actor the opportunity to commit the crime, this would not count as entrapment.

A Dedicated Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer 

Anyone who is convicted of a crime knows that a prosecutor will work tirelessly to convict you. You need someone as dedicated in your corner. Attorney David White is a skilled defense attorney who is ready to fight for you. Contact the Law Office of David D. White, PLLC to schedule your consultation.