Also known as: temporal concurrences · concurrence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The principle requiring that a defendant's culpable mental state exist simultaneously with the physical act that constitutes the crime. The mental state must cause the act for liability to attach.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Timothy Tang loads a gun intending to shoot his rival but then decides against it and sets the gun down. Hours later he accidentally squeezes the trigger while moving the weapon, killing the rival. Because the intent to kill no longer exists at the instant of the squeeze, temporal concurrence fails and murder liability does not attach.
Tobias Thomas picks up a neighbor's bicycle believing it abandoned and only later decides to keep it permanently. The intent to deprive arises after the taking, so temporal concurrence is missing and larceny is not established.
Tonya Takahashi aims a rifle at a deer with intent to kill it but then lowers the weapon. When the rifle discharges accidentally moments later, the original intent has dissipated. Without concurrence of intent and act at the same instant, the shooting does not support a completed crime.
Tanner Thompson receives company funds to deposit and only after the deposit forms the plan to keep them. Because the intent to convert did not exist at the moment of receipt, temporal concurrence is absent and embezzlement charges fail.
Tiffany Torres plans to poison her husband but later abandons the plan. When she serves him food that happens to be tainted from an earlier unrelated spill, the prior intent does not coincide with the serving act. Temporal concurrence is not satisfied.
Tabitha Taylor bumps into a pedestrian while turning around and only afterward becomes angry and decides she meant to strike him. The intent arises after the contact, breaking temporal concurrence and preventing battery liability.
The culpable mental state and the physical act must exist at the same moment, and the mental state must cause the act. If the intent forms before or after the act, the requirement is not met.
Supporting sources
No. The felony-murder rule is an exception to the concurrence requirement because liability attaches even if the defendant did not intend to kill at the moment of the killing.
Supporting sources
The defendant must possess the intent to deprive at the exact moment of taking the property. Intent that arises only later does not satisfy the requirement.
Supporting sources
…unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. I write separately, however, to express my concurrence in the Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton , 410 U.S. 179 (1973), and my dissent in Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Concurring — Douglas, J. While I join the opinion of the Court, I…