Transferred Intent

This page includes a writing template for analyzing this topic and usage notes to guide its application. In general, the template is designed to serve as a starting point for your analysis. It should be adapted to fit the specific facts of your case and your professor’s preferences.

Writing Template

The Common Law explicitly recognizes the doctrine of transferred intent, whereas the Model Penal Code (MPC) does not. Instead, the MPC implicitly acknowledges a similar concept through a different formulation.

Issue

I: The issue is whether Defendant can be held liable for the unintended harm.

Analysis

R: The standard of transferred intent depends on whether the crime is defined by (1) common law or (2) statute.

A: Here, the crime is defined by [common law/statute].

1. Common Law Transferred Intent

R: Under common law, the doctrine of transferred intent applies to certain malice or general intent crimes, such as homicide, battery, and arson, where (1) the defendant’s intent to harm one person or property results in harm to an unintended victim or property (i.e., “bad aim” cases) due to (2) an error in execution, rather than misidentification. Further, the doctrine applies only to completed crimes, not to attempted crimes.

A: Here, [apply rule to facts].

2. MPC "Transferred Intent"

R: Under the Model Penal Code, when causing a particular result is an element of an offense, that element may be established if (1) the actual result is not within the purpose or contemplation of the defendant or is not within the risk of which the defendant is aware, provided that (2) the actual result differs from the intended, contemplated, or probable result only to the extent that (a) a different person or property is harmed, or (b) the contemplated injury or harm would have been more serious or more extensive than the harm actually caused.

A: Here, [apply rule to facts].

Conclusion

C: Therefore, Defendant [may/may not] be held liable for the unintended harm.

Note on Defenses

Any defenses that the defendant could raise against the intended victim (such as self-defense) are also applicable to the unintended victim under this doctrine.

Usage Notes

JurisJotter templates synthesize legal principles into a practical format that supports the development of well-structured, point-rich analyses in a timed exam.

The template features (1) headers identifying the overall issue, analysis, and conclusion. If the analysis begins with an umbrella rule that identifies elements, factors, or steps of the analysis, it will be followed by subheaders that signpost the analysis of each component.

The template also features (2) IRAC labels at the beginning of each paragraph. These headers and labels are included for educational purposes, offering guidance on structuring your analysis. Your usage of the headers is optional but can be helpful to readers. We advise against including the IRAC labels in submitted work.

The templates serve as a general guide for writing and should be adapted to align with (1) your specific factual circumstances and (2) your professor’s preferences, particularly if your professor provides explicit formulations of rules or analyses. For example, you may add or subtract an element or modify its language. Regardless of whether your professor provides explicit formulations, (3) this template will assist you in crafting point-rich analyses.

Please note that these templates are writing aids and not finished products. They are efficiently designed for exam essays to demonstrate conceptual understanding; thus, they are not comprehensive outlines with historical context or dicta.

Questions or comments? Reach out at [email protected].