Transferred Intent

Background

A defendant who acts with an intent to kill individual A but accidentally kills individual B may still be found guilty of murder with intent to kill under the theory of transferred intent. The defendant may not even have to be aware the actual victim existed. Thus, the doctrine typically applies when a defendant fires a weapon at an intended victim and that bullet penetrates a nearby apartment, killing an actual victim.

Transferred intent will generally apply to any case in which the required state of mind is either intent or knowledge. However, if the crime is committed with recklessless or negligence. In these cases, the defense should argue that the doctrine either does not apply, or that a close connection between the intended and actual victim should be proven by the prosecution.

When the doctrine does not apply

The doctrine of transferred intent generally does not apply to attempt crimes.

The doctrine may not apply if the resulting harm is different in nature than the defendant intended. Thus, a defendant who intends to assault individual A but strikes B, killing that individual, may not be liable for the additional harm.

The doctrine may not apply if the actual victim was totally unforeseeable. The Model Penal Code Section 2.03(2)(b) states that the doctrine may not apply if the victim was "too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the [defendant's] liability...."

Even if the doctrine applies, a defendant may be able to argue that the victim's injuries were not the proximate cause of the defendant's actions.

A defendant who is charged with a crime under a theory of transferred intent will still be able to raise the same defenses he would have if he had killed his intended victim. For example, if defendant was being attacked by a mugger and fired his pistol in self defense, he would still be able to raise self-defense as a defense against the killing of a third party.