New! H2O now has access to new and up-to-date cases via CourtListener and the Caselaw Access Project. Click here for more info.

Main Content

Criminal Law Simons, Volumes I and II

Transferred Intent (Ehrenreicht)

In Conley, the defendant was convicted of a battery offense--intentionally causing injury--even though he did not intend to hurt the person who was injured (Conley attempted to strike Marty Carroll, but accidentally struck Sean O'Connell). This type of "bad aim" scenario, which is even more common in homicide cases, has been dealt with in different ways.

At common law, judges developed a doctrine known as "transferred intent," which is described below. The Model Penal Code addressed the issue with a provision of general application, MPC section 2.03, which the New York Penal Law addresses it in individual statutes. 

All three approaches, though, leave an important ambiguity. Should a defendant who harms an unintended victim also be responsible for attempting to harm the intended victim? (That is, would it be appropriate to convict Conley of both aggravated battery of Sean and attempted aggravated battery of Marty?

As you review these various approaches, consider these questions: 


1. D intends to kill A. Shoots and misses. Bullet strikes and kills B. What crime with respect to A? What crime with respect to B?


2. D intends to kill A. Shoots A killing him. Bullet goes through A and also strikes and kills B. What crime with respect to A? What crime with respect to B?


3. D intends to commit the crime of unlawful hunting. Shoots at a flock of birds and misses. Bullet strikes and kills B. What crime with respect to the birds? What crime with respect to B?