Common Law: Specific vs. General Intent

The Traditional Approach

In traditional common law, as discussed in the Crim Law, Prof Howell Outline, criminal liability requires more than just a physical act. Before the Model Penal Code simplified things, courts categorized every crime into one of two buckets. Specific Intent and General Intent. These labels determine which defenses a defendant can use to avoid conviction.

Specific Intent

Specific intent crimes require a subjective desire to achieve a particular result beyond the physical act itself. You aren't just doing the act; you are doing it with a 'special' purpose in mind. For example, in larceny, you must intend to permanently deprive the owner of their property. Inchoate crimes like attempt or conspiracy always fall into this category.

General Intent

General intent crimes only require that the defendant intended to perform the physical act that the law forbids. The prosecution doesn't need to prove a specific motive or outcome. Take battery: the defendant must intend to strike the person, but they don't need the specific intent to cause a permanent injury. Rape and false imprisonment are other classic examples of general intent.

Recap: The Two Categories

Let's pause to consolidate. Specific intent is about the 'why' behind the act—the ultimate goal. General intent is simply the 'will' to do the act itself. Remember, as noted in the Prof Howell Outline, these categories are the traditional framework you'll encounter in common law jurisdictions.

The House Party: A Tale of Two Intents

Consider Alex and Sam at a party. Both are heavily intoxicated. Alex takes a laptop, intending to sell it. He's charged with larceny. Sam gets into an argument and punches a guest. He's charged with battery. Does their intoxication help their defense? Click on either person to see the legal outcome. For Sam, it's different. Battery is a general intent crime. His intoxication is irrelevant because he intended the physical motion of the punch. The defense is barred. Because larceny is a specific intent crime, Alex can argue his intoxication was so severe he couldn't form the intent to 'permanently deprive' the owner. The defense is available.

The Defense Test: Mistake of Fact

Mistake of fact is the second major defense influenced by intent levels. In specific intent crimes, any mistake—even a totally unreasonable one—that negates that special purpose is a defense. But for general intent crimes, the law is stricter. Only a reasonable mistake of fact provides a defense.

Common Pitfalls

Law students often trip over three common areas. First, don't confuse intent with motive. Intent is the desire to act; motive is the 'why'—like stealing to feed a family. Second, avoid using MPC terms like 'recklessly' or 'knowingly' here. Those belong to a different system. Finally, remember that battery only requires intent for contact, not intent for harm.

Senior Partner Review

You're a first-year associate. Your senior partner has a new case: a defendant charged with Burglary who claims they were too drunk to know what they were doing. Explain to the partner whether this defense is viable under common law.

Final Recap

You've mastered the traditional common law framework. Specific intent is the key to many specialized defenses, while general intent keeps the bar high for defendants. In the next lesson, we'll see how the Model Penal Code attempted to clear up this historical confusion.