Also known as: specific intent · general intent · specific intent vs. general intent · specific intent distinction · general intent distinction
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrinal framework in criminal law that classifies the mental element of an offense as either specific intent, which requires proof that the defendant acted with a particular purpose or additional mental state beyond commission of the prohibited act, or general intent, which requires only that the defendant intended to perform the act itself.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sophia Singh approached Spencer Silver at a rally and offered him cash to assault a rival speaker that evening, giving detailed instructions on timing and location. The prosecution must prove that Sophia acted with the specific intent that Spencer actually commit the assault. General approval of violence at the event would not suffice to establish the offense.
Samantha Stone, a party leader, urged followers to prepare for violent revolution when conditions allowed, using coded language about infiltration. Prosecutors must show that Samantha possessed the specific intent to advocate overthrow by force rather than mere abstract discussion. The distinction determines whether the advocacy crosses into unprotected conduct.
Sabrina Shah recorded conversations in which she discussed plans to harm a critic, but the recordings revealed only that she did not care if harm occurred. The government must prove specific intent that listeners act on the statements rather than general hostility. Without that showing the evidence fails to establish the required mental element.
Sterling Manufacturing executives agreed on pricing formulas knowing the likely effect on competitors. The government must establish that the executives acted with the specific intent to restrain trade rather than merely foreseeing the consequence. The distinction controls whether the conduct supports criminal liability.
Skylar Sullivan consumed alcohol before committing an assault and sought to introduce the evidence to show she lacked the required mental state. The statute bars consideration of voluntary intoxication to negate general intent but permits it for specific intent elements. The distinction determines admissibility of the evidence.
Sofia Stern took property believing she had a right to it and claimed the taking was not criminal. The prosecution must prove specific intent to permanently deprive the owner rather than general intent to take the item. The distinction decides whether the mental element of larceny is satisfied.
Specific intent requires that the defendant act with the purpose that the solicited person actually commit the crime. General approval or agreement with the conduct is insufficient. The offense is complete upon the solicitation itself.
Supporting sources
Voluntary intoxication may be considered to negate specific intent but is often barred from negating general intent under statutes like the one upheld in Montana v. Egelhoff. The distinction therefore controls whether the evidence can defeat an element of the offense.
…(1965), limits the discretion of the Board of Building Code Appeals to grant variances to those which are "in harmony with the general intent of such ordinance . . . ." If one of the legitimate objectives of the definition of "family" was to preserve the single (nuclear) family character of East Cleveland, then granting this…
…property; the declaration to that effect in the employee manual merely removed any doubts on that score and made the finding of specific intent to defraud that much easier. Winans continued in the employ of the Journal, appropriating its confidential business information for his own use, all the while pretending to perform his duty…
…by force; § 2(a)(3) proscribes organizing groups that teach or advocate such overthrow. Because § 2(a)(2) expressly requires specific intent, petitioners argue Congress deliberately omitted
…Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 22 (West 1988). The rule that a defendant may not introduce evidence of voluntary intoxication to negate specific intent is of “too recent vintage” to qualify as a “fundamental principle.” Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U. S. 348, 360 (1996). The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies to every element of…
…to reach such people to harm his enemies. But defendant’s mere awareness that violent individuals exist does not equate to specific intent
Supporting sources
Punishment of advocacy requires proof that the speaker acted with specific intent to incite imminent lawless action that is likely to occur. Mere general approval of illegal conduct remains protected. Courts apply the distinction to separate abstract advocacy from unprotected incitement.
Supporting sources
Conversion becomes embezzlement only when the defendant acts with intent to defraud, which functions as the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner. General intent to take or use the property is not enough.
Supporting sources
No. Malice suffices and may be shown by intent to burn, knowledge that the structure will burn, or conscious disregard of a substantial risk. Negligence alone does not satisfy the mental element, but specific intent to burn the dwelling is unnecessary.
Supporting sources