INTENTION, INTENT. A design, resolve, or determination of the mind.
In Criminal Law. To render an act crimi nal, a wrongful intent must exist; 7 C. & P. 428; U. S. v. Pearce, 2 McLean 14, Fed. Cas. No. 16,020; State v. Berkshire, 2 Ind. 207; State v. Bartlett, 30 Me. 132; Smith v. Kin ne, 19 Vt. 564; State v. Voight, 90 N. C. 741. And with this must be combined a wrongful act; as mere intent is not punishable; 9 Co. 81 a; 2 C. & P. 414; Com. v. Morse, 2 Mass. 138; Ross v. Com., 2 B. Monr. (Ky.) 417; Torrey v. Field, 10 Vt. 353; U. S. v. Riddle, 5 Cra. (U. S.) 311, 3 L. Ed.,110; but see R. & R. 308; 1 Lew. Cr. Cas. 42; and perhaps always, the intent and act must con cur in point of time ; 1 Bish. Cr. L. § 207; Cl. Cr. L. 45, 238, 265; but a wrongful intent may render criminal an act otherwise inno cent; 1 C. & K. 600; Com. v. Hersey, 2 Allen (Mass.) 181; 1 East, Pl. Cr. 255 ; Ran som v. State, 22 Conn. 153.
In considering whether a defendant charg ed with doing a criminal act did it with criminal intent, his prior and accompanying acts are all to be considered, and the rule in civil cases as to the existence of a fraud ulent intent may be invoked ; State v. Mu sick, 101 Mo. 260, 14 S. W. 212.
Where a transaction on its face is as con sistent with honesty as with fraud, it will be presumed that the intent was lawful; State v. Gritzner, 134 Mo: 512, 36 S. W. 39.
Courts must judge the intent a man has in doing an act by the means he employs and the thing to be accomplished. If they all be lawful, courts cannot impute malice or un lawful motives to the actor; Barton v. Rog ers, 21 Idaho, 609, 128 Pac. 478, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) .681.
Generally, where any wrongful act is com mitted, the law will infer conclusively that it was intentionally committed; Hill v. Com., 2 Gratt. (Va.) 594; Taylor v. State, 4 Ga. 14; Com. v. Hersey, 2 Allen (Mass.) 179; as the intent to take life may b einferred from the character of the assault, the use of a deadly weapon and the attendant circum stances; Jackson v. State, 94 Ala. 85, 10 South. 509; Winn v. State, 82 Wis. 571, 52 N. W. 775; and also that the natural, nec
essary, and even probable consequences were intended; 5 C. & P. 588; People v. Herrick, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 87; Corn. v. Blanding, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 304, 15 Am. Dec. 214; Hill v. Corn., 2 Gratt. (Va.) 594; State v. Fuller, 1 Bay (S. C.) 245, 1 Am. Dec. 610; West v. State, 9 Humphr. (Tenn.) 66.
Generally speaking, when a statute makes an act indictable, irrespective of guilty knowledge, ignorance of fact is no defence; Com. v. Wentworth, 118 Mass. 441; L. IL 2 C. C. 154; Beckham v. Nacke, 56 Mo. 546 ; see Halsted v. State, 41 N. J. L. 552, 32 Am. Rep. 247 ; contra, Farrell v. State, 32 Ohio St. 456, 30 Am. Rep. 614, where the subject is fully treated. See IGNORANCE.
Intent is in a certain sense essential to the commission of a crime and in some classes of cases it is necessary to show moral turpitude; but there is a class of cases where purposely doing a thing prohibited by statute may amount to an offence though the act does not involve moral wrong, for in stance where shippers pay a rate under the honest belief that it is the lawful rate when it is not ; Armour .Packing Co. v. U. S., 209 U. S. 85, 28 Sup. Ct. 428, 52 L. Ed. 681; a mistake of law as to the right to shin under the contract after the change of rate is un availing; id.
When by the common law, or by the pro vision of a statute, a particular intention is essential to an offence, or a criminal act is attempted but not accomplished, and the evil intent only can be punished, it is neces sary to allege the intent with distinctness and precision, and to support the allegations with proof. On the other hand, if the offence does •not rest merely in tendency, or in an attempt to do a certain act with a wicked purpose, but consists in doing an unlawful or criminal act, the evil intention will be presumed, and need not be alleged, or, if al leged, it is a mere formal averment, which I need not be proved; Com. v. Hersey, 2 Allen (Mass.) 180; 6 East 474; Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 306, 52 Am. Dec. 711; State v. I Smith, 93 N. C. 516.