Also known as: intent to kill
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An intent to cause the death of another person. At common law this mental state constitutes express malice and satisfies the malice aforethought element of murder when shown by the deliberate use of a deadly weapon directed at a vital part of the victim's body.
Sous-chef Marco grabbed a carving knife and deliberately plunged it into line cook Devin's neck after an argument. Devin died minutes later. The jury may infer from the targeted use of the deadly weapon on a vital area that Marco possessed animus occidendi.
Dr. Lewis left an argument, retrieved a scalpel, and deliberately drove it into nurse Carla's chest. Carla died instantly. The facts support a finding of animus occidendi because the deliberate thrust of a deadly instrument into a vital body part shows intent to kill.
Ethan spent the afternoon loading his hunting rifle, then confronted farmhand Luis in the barn and fired a single shot into Luis's chest. Luis died at the scene. The jury may infer animus occidendi from the intentional discharge of a deadly weapon aimed at a vital area.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Carla lured board member Omar to a dark parking lot, retrieved a tire iron, and repeatedly struck him in the head. Omar died instantly. The repeated blows with a deadly weapon to a vital area permit the factfinder to conclude that Carla acted with animus occidendi.
Financial analyst Luis pulled a handgun from his briefcase during an argument and fired once at Carla's chest at close range. Carla died almost immediately. The jury may infer animus occidendi from the deliberate use of the weapon on a vital part of the body.
Professor Max wrapped an extension cord around graduate student Preston's neck and pulled forcefully for several minutes. Preston died from asphyxiation. The sustained application of the cord to a vital area supports an inference of animus occidendi.
A jury may infer animus occidendi when the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon directed at a vital part of the victim's body. The inference arises from the nature of the weapon and the targeted area even without an express statement of intent to kill.
Supporting sources
No. Emotional disturbance does not negate the inference of intent to kill when the defendant deliberately uses a deadly weapon on a vital area. The jury focuses on the defendant's conduct rather than subjective feelings.
Supporting sources
Animus occidendi is a deliberate intent to cause death and constitutes express malice. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm is a separate form of implied malice that also satisfies malice aforethought but does not require proof of a purpose to kill.
Supporting sources
Yes. One well-aimed shot or strike to a vital area with a deadly weapon is sufficient for the jury to infer intent to kill. Multiple blows are not required.
Supporting sources
…v. Wilbur , 421 U. S. 684 (1975), in which we invalidated a Maine statute that presumed that a defendant who acted with an intent to kill possessed the "malice aforethought" necessary to constitute the State's murder offense (and therefore, was subject to that crime's associated punishment of life imprisonment). The statute…