What Exactly Are Specific Intent Crimes?
In common law, crimes are generally classified as either with specific intent or with general intent. In California, some offenses are labeled as "specific intent crimes."
When charged with such an offense, the prosecutor faces a greater burden of proof to demonstrate that you did not act willfully but intentionally aimed to cause harm.
This benefits you as a defendant because merely proving that you broke the law isn't enough; prosecutors also need to demonstrate that you had a specific intent.
In simple terms, specific intent crimes are offenses where the prosecutor must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant intended to cause a particular harm.
Types of Specific Intent Crimes
Having a specific intent is a required element of some crimes. Examples of such crimes include Penal Code 211 PC (robbery), Penal Code 459 PC (burglary), and Penal Code 470 PC (forgery).
In contrast, general intent crimes are offenses in which the prosecutor must prove that the defendant committed a criminal act, but need not demonstrate that the defendant intended the specific result of that act.
Examples include Penal Code 240 PC (assault) and Penal Code 242 PC (battery).
Key terms related to these crimes are "actus reus" (the physical act) and "mens rea" (the defendant's mental state).
Key Takeaways
- A specific intent crime requires the defendant to both have the intention to commit an unlawful act and to deliberately violate the law.
- This highlights the significance of the defendant's mental condition, with criminal intent being a crucial aspect.
- Some statutes outline the mental state needed for guilt, classifying crimes as either misdemeanors or felonies based on the defendant's intention.
- Criminal charges in California range from minor infractions to serious felonies, which can carry significant jail or prison sentences, fines, and long-term consequences.
Let's examine the differences between specific and general intent crimes in California law to gain a clearer understanding of this concept.
Specific Intent Crimes - Explained
Specific intent crimes involve cases where the prosecution needs to demonstrate that the defendant had a specific purpose or goal when committing the act.
This means the defendant not only planned to perform the act but also aimed for a particular result through their actions.
An example of such a crime is Penal Code 187 PC murder, where prosecutors must establish that the defendant intentionally killed someone and intended to do so.
General Intent Crimes - Explained
In contrast, general intent crimes do not necessitate proving a specific intent to inflict harm or accomplish a particular outcome.
Prosecutors only need to demonstrate that the act was committed, or that you knowingly intended to commit the act without aiming for a specific result.
A clear example of a general intent crime is California Vehicle Code 23152 VC DUI, since prosecutors do not need to prove that you deliberately intended to drive drunk-only that you voluntarily drove while intoxicated.
Similarly, Penal Code 240 PC simple assault is a crime of general intent—prosecutors only need to prove you willfully attempted to exert force on someone.
They do not need to demonstrate that you intended to cause harm. To understand the difference between specific and general intent, consider the legal concepts of actus reus and mens rea.
- Actus reus pertains to the physical act or illegal conduct itself, and
- Mens rea describes the mental state of the accused at the time of committing the act.
In cases of general intent crimes, prosecutors need only establish actus reus—demonstrating that you intentionally performed the physical act.
For specific intent crimes, they must prove both actus reus, confirming the act occurred, and mens rea, showing you intended to cause harm.
Other Examples of Specific Intent Crimes
Several criminal offenses in California law require prosecutors to demonstrate specific intent for conviction. These include, but are not limited to, the following.
- Petty Theft - Penal Code 484(a) PC: Theft is classified as a specific intent crime because the accused must have purposely intended to deprive the owner of their property permanently. This specific intent involves more than just taking someone else's property; it is an intentional act to steal.
- Burglary - Penal Code 459 PC: California defines burglary as an intent to enter a building with the purpose of committing a crime inside. Prosecutors must prove that the accused intended to commit either theft or a felony once inside the structure.
- Forgery - Penal Code 470 PC: Forgery is a specific intent crime because defendants must intentionally deceive by falsely creating or altering a document to pass it off as genuine. In this context, the specific intent is to deceive another person. Although PC 470 explicitly states "intent to defraud," other laws often include that the defendant acted knowingly, purposely, willfully, or recklessly.
- Lewd or Lascivious Acts with a Minor - Penal Code 288 PC: This crime, along with other types of child molestation, requires proof of specific intent. To secure a conviction, prosecutors must demonstrate that the defendant not only committed sexual acts with a minor but also intentionally aimed to arouse either themselves or the child. This differs from simply touching a child's genitals during a bath.
How to Determine Intent
Assessing intent in specific intent crimes can be challenging. California courts employ different tests to evaluate intent, primarily by examining the defendant's actions and the crime's context.
A widely used approach is the "reasonable person" test, which determines what a typical person would have intended in comparable situations.
If it is reasonable to believe that a person could predict that their actions might result in a certain outcome, the court might deduce specific intent.
Another approach involves assessing both direct and circumstantial evidence, such as statements from the accused or actions indicating planning or premeditation.
Since these crimes hinge on specific intent, a common defense strategy is to argue that the defendant lacked the required intent. For instance, in a PC 470 forgery case, a California defense lawyer might contend that the defendant did not aim to defraud.
Contact our law firm to review your case details and explore legal options. Cron, Israels & Stark has offices in Los Angeles, California.