Most serious crimes require proof of the accused person's intent. Without evidence that proves or implies intent, a criminal defendant has a strong argument for acquittal.

However, not every offense requires the same intent. One way to distinguish the intent necessary is by categorizing it as general or specific. The type and nature of the evidence needed for a conviction will differ greatly depending on the category.

What Is Intent?

Prosecutors must have evidence of two broad elements. First, they must prove that you committed the prohibited act. This “actus reus” is the physical act barred by the criminal statute. For example, the actus reus for a battery is an unlawful use of force or violence against another.

Second, they must prove you committed the act with the required intent. This “mens rea” is the mental state that, combined with the actus reus, constitutes the offense.

For example, the mens rea for battery is willfulness. Thus, it is not enough that the accused applied unlawful force or violence to someone else. They must do it willfully. 

The mens rea distinguishes a battery from an accident. If you punch someone, you may have committed a battery. If you slipped and hit someone with your fist as you fell, you probably did not batter the victim.

Different Types of Intent

One way to distinguish different levels of intent is by the purposefulness of the intent required, as follows:

• Intentional acts occur when the accused purposefully performs the prohibited act or seeks the prohibited goal
• Willful acts happen when the accused commits the prohibited act deliberately
• Knowing acts happen when the accused knows that the circumstances are virtually certain to bring about the prohibited act or goal
• Reckless acts happen when the accused consciously disregards a substantial risk that their acts would cause the prohibited act or result
• Criminally negligent acts occur when someone grossly deviates from the expected standard of care, and the prohibited act or result occurs

In order to understand the elements of a criminal offense you need to know what the prohibited act is and intent that the prosecutor must prove in order to convict you of that offense.

General Intent Offenses

A general intent offense means that prosecutors only need to prove that the defendant intended to do the act itself, not that they intended the result or had a specific goal in mind. For example, arson is a general intent offense. It happens when someone willfully and maliciously burns a structure, forest land, or property.

In this case, prosecutors need only prove that the burning was deliberate rather than accidental. The use of “willfully and maliciously” excludes accidental fires and fires that burned property you believed to be yours.

However, prosecutors do not need to prove that you intended a specific outcome or purpose. For example, you commit arson even if you did not intend to completely burn down the structure or injure anyone inside. 

Specific Intent Offenses

Specific intent offenses require prosecutors to prove that you had the general intent to commit the prohibited act and that you had the specific intent to cause a particular outcome or achieve an identified purpose.

A classic example of a specific intent offense is burglary. This offense happens when someone intentionally enters the dwelling or structure of another with the intent to commit a felony. Thus, prosecutors must show that the entry was intentional. If the accused was pushed or mistakenly entered, they cannot prove the requisite general intent.

Prosecutors must also prove that the accused had the specific intent or plan to commit a felony after entering. For example, prosecutors must have evidence that the jury can use to infer felonious intent, such as property taken from the structure.

Defenses to Disprove Intent

In most cases, prosecutors have an easier path for proving general intent offenses than specific intent.  This is because of the particular evidence needed to prove specific intent. For example, proving theft requires proof that you willfully took someone else's property and that you specifically intended to permanently deprive the possessor of it.

Suppose that you found a watch on a park bench. You willfully took it when you picked it up. However, prosecutors must prove that you intended to deprive the owner by keeping it, destroying it, or giving it away. If you intended to post it online to try to find the owner, prosecutors cannot prove the requisite specific intent.

Thus, a defense to any specific intent crime aims to disprove the required intent. In a prosecution for a general intent offense, the defense must prove that there was no intent to perform the prohibited act.

Similarly, in a prosecution for a specific intent offense, you might defend yourself with evidence that you had a purpose other than the prohibited outcome or act. For instance, showing that you did not intend to defraud might overcome forgery charges.

Differences in Specific and General Intent Offenses

The differences between specific and general intent can provide a path for a strong defense.  These differences may give you options for discrediting the prosecution's evidence to secure an acquittal, dismissal, or plea deal.