Criminal Intent or State of Mind

NJ Criminal Intent or State of Mind

In New Jersey, having criminal intent or a “guilty mind” is usually required to be convicted of a crime. This means the prosecution must prove the defendant had the necessary mental state when committing the illegal act.

Criminal intent refers to the determination or purpose to commit a crime. There are different levels of intent defined in New Jersey law:

• Purposely – Acting with the conscious object to engage in certain conduct or cause a result. The highest level of intent.
• Knowingly – Being practically certain one’s conduct will cause a result.
• Recklessly – Being aware and consciously disregarding a substantial risk.
• Negligently – Being unaware of a substantial risk one should have known.

The type of intent required depends on the criminal statute. Some laws require acting “purposely” or “knowingly” while others require a lower level like “recklessly.” The prosecution must prove the defendant had the intent level specified in the law.

General vs. Specific Intent

New Jersey laws distinguish between general intent and specific intent crimes:

• General intent refers to the intent simply to do the prohibited act itself. For example, intentionally punching someone to commit assault.
• Specific intent requires added intent beyond the act itself. Like assault with intent to kill or break into a home with intent to steal.

Specific intent crimes require a more advanced mental state like purposely or knowingly. General intent may only require reckless or negligent conduct[1].

Strict Liability Crimes

Some laws called strict liability crimes don’t require any intent. Simply committing the prohibited act is enough to be guilty. Common strict liability crimes include traffic violations, statutory rape, and illegal possession of items[2].

Since intent isn’t required, strict liability crimes don’t allow using defenses about not meaning to break the law. But strict liability is controversial and limited to minor offenses with low punishment.

Using Lack of Intent as a Defense

In crimes requiring intent, the defense can argue the defendant lacked the level of intent defined in the statute. For example:

• Arguing the defendant acted negligently but not recklessly as required.
• Showing the defendant was mistaken about facts negating intent.
• Proving the defendant was legally insane and unable to form intent.
• Presenting evidence of intoxication preventing purposeful action.

If the defense raises reasonable doubt about the defendant having the required criminal intent, they could be acquitted or convicted of a lesser offense.

Proving Intent

Since intent exists in the mind, the prosecution usually proves it with circumstantial evidence, including[3]:

• The defendant’s words, actions, and demeanor before, during, and after the crime.
• Any planning, preparation, or targeting of the victim.
• Use of a weapon or other tools to commit the crime.
• Steps taken to avoid detection like fleeing, hiding evidence, or lying.
• A pattern of similar acts by the defendant.
• The nature and severity of the crime itself.

Criminal intent can be inferred from such evidence and the circumstances as a whole.

Accidental Acts

Lack of intent also applies when someone commits a criminal act totally by accident. For example, a driver hitting a pedestrian due to slippery roads. With no criminal purpose or negligence, the act isn’t a crime[4].

Mistake of Fact

Mistake of fact can also negate intent if the defendant had a reasonable but mistaken belief about facts that, if true, would make their act legal. Like mistakenly believing another person consented[5]. Their mistake means they didn’t have the intent required.

Public Policy Considerations

Requiring intent for crimes has policy trade-offs[6]:

Arguments for intent requirements:

• Upholds morality – only punishes deliberate wrongdoing.
• Protects innocent mistakes.
• Proportionality – intent reflects degree of blameworthiness.

Arguments against intent requirements:

• Harder to prosecute – burdensome to prove subjective mental state.
• Could allow dangerous people to avoid liability.
• Undermines deterrence.

Lawmakers must balance these factors in defining intent requirements for each law.

Conclusion

Except for strict liability crimes, New Jersey requires proving criminal intent to convict defendants. The prosecution must establish the defendant had the specific level of intent defined in the criminal statute, whether purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently. Lack of intent can be a defense and prevents punishing truly accidental acts. But reasonable inferences about intent are permitted from circumstantial evidence. Criminal intent requirements aim to uphold culpability while avoiding punishing innocent mistakes.

Citations

[1] New Jersey Criminal Intent Laws

[2] CALCRIM No. 3410. Strict Liability Crimes

[3] Intent

[4] CALCRIM No. 520. Accident

[5] CALCRIM No. 3411. Mistake of Fact

[6] Public Welfare Offenses