Key Takeaways

  • Transferred intent allows criminal liability to follow the action even if the intended victim is not harmed, as long as the act and harm are of the same kind.
  • The doctrine originated in tort law but has been adapted for criminal law to address fairness and accountability.
  • Courts generally restrict transferred intent to “like-kind” crimes (e.g., intent to kill one person resulting in another’s death).
  • Classic cases, like Talmage v. Smith, illustrate how intent against one person can transfer to another unintended victim.
  • Limitations exist: transferred intent usually does not apply to property crimes or negligence.
  • Application varies depending on the mental state requirement (mens rea) and the type of crime, such as homicide, assault, or battery.
  • Some jurisdictions use transferred intent to impose liability for unintended but foreseeable harms, while others limit it to direct acts.

Transferred Intent

Transferred intent is a concept that allows for the guilt to follow the action, regardless of who the victim is. That way, if Gus tries to kill Bill by shooting him, but misses and kills Rick instead, Gus may be found just as criminally liable for the death of Rick as he would have been for the death of Bill, had he succeeded in his intention. The doctrine of transferred intent is borrowed from tort law and applied in a criminal law context.

The overwhelming majority of transferred intent cases involve people missing their true target with firearms or thrown projectiles of some kind, which led these cases to be referred to as "bad aim" cases. However, if Claudius tries to kill Hamlet by poison and his wife drinks the fatal cup instead, then the doctrine of transferred intent may allow Claudius to be found as guilty of his wife's death as he would have been had be succeeded in the murder of Hamlet. Likewise with arson, sexual assault, larceny and every other crime: if the defendant perpetrates the act, and there is a victim, then the defendant may be punished no matter who the victim was or was intended to be.

In general, criminal courts have restricted the use of the transferred intent doctrine to situations of like kind. For example, if Gus tries to shoot Bill, but instead breaks Rick's window and puts a hole in his wall, then Gus will probably not be found guilty of malicious injury to property. His intention to harm Bill's person is of a different kind than the desire to harm property, and therefor intent will probably not be transferred.

Historical Origins of Transferred Intent

The doctrine of transferred intent can be traced back to early English common law. Courts developed it to ensure that a wrongdoer could not escape liability simply because the wrong victim was harmed. The principle was first articulated in tort law, where intent to harm one person could be extended to liability when another was injured instead. Over time, criminal courts adopted the doctrine, particularly in cases involving homicide and assault, to uphold the idea that intent to harm should not be excused by accident.

Key Case Examples

One of the most cited cases is Talmage v. Smith (1894), where the defendant threw a stick intending to hit one boy but accidentally struck another. The court held him liable under transferred intent, reasoning that the wrongful intent toward the first victim carried over to the unintended victim.

In criminal law, an often-discussed scenario involves shootings: if a defendant aims to kill one person but misses and kills another, liability is the same as if the intended victim had died. This ensures that the severity of the crime is judged by the outcome coupled with the original malicious intent.

Limits and Restrictions

Courts restrict the use of transferred intent to ensure fairness. The doctrine typically applies only when the nature of the intended harm matches the harm that actually occurs. For instance:

  • Like-kind rule: Intent to harm a person cannot usually transfer to property damage, since the underlying interests are different.
  • No transfer in negligence: Because negligence is based on carelessness rather than intent, most courts refuse to extend transferred intent in such cases.
  • Mens rea limitations: If a crime requires specific intent (such as burglary with intent to steal), transferred intent may not apply unless the same mental state is present.

Applications in Assault and Battery

Transferred intent plays an especially important role in assault and battery cases. For example, if someone swings a bat at one person but strikes another, courts hold the offender liable for battery against the unintended victim. Similarly, if the intended strike misses but causes another person to reasonably fear immediate harm, liability for assault may apply. This ensures that both physical harm and the fear of harm are adequately addressed under the law.

Modern Applications in Homicide

Homicide cases often invoke transferred intent when an intended victim survives but an unintended person dies instead. The law generally treats this as murder if the original act was committed with malice aforethought. The doctrine ensures that the defendant’s culpability remains consistent with their original criminal purpose, even if fate redirected the harm.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is transferred intent in criminal law?

Transferred intent is a doctrine that allows intent directed at one person to be applied when another person is harmed instead.

2. Does transferred intent apply to property crimes?

Usually no. Courts limit the doctrine to crimes against persons, not property damage.

3. Can transferred intent apply to negligence cases?

No, because negligence involves lack of intent, courts generally refuse to apply transferred intent.

4. What is the classic case illustrating transferred intent?

Talmage v. Smith (1894), where intent to strike one boy transferred to liability when another boy was hit.

5. How does transferred intent work in homicide cases?

If a defendant tries to kill one person but accidentally kills another, the doctrine treats the act as murder, preserving criminal liability.

If you need help with any legal matters, you can post your legal need on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel only accepts the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.