General Intent vs. Specific Intent Sometimes general intent is used to denote a general mens rea, while specific intent will denote the precise mental state required for a particular crime. The most common usage of specific intent is to describe a special mental element required above and beyond any mental state required with respect to the actus reus of the crime. General intent is merely the “intention to make the bodily movement which constitutes the act which the crime requires.” State v. James, 211 Conn. 555, 560 A.2d 426 (1989). In other words, general intent requires no special mens rea beyond the most basic intent to perform the actus reus only.

Some examples of common specific intent crimes are:

• Solicitation
• Attempt
• Conspiracy
• First Degree Murder
• Larceny
• Robbery
• Forgery
• False Pretenses
• Embezzlement

Some examples of common general intent crimes are:

• Burglary
• Arson
• Rape
• Kidnapping
• Murder

The reason that the distinction between general intent and specific intent matter in criminal law is because the defenses of mistake of law or mistake of fact may turn on whether the crime requires proof of a general intent or a specific intent. For example, if there is a mistake of fact based on reasonable (general intent) or honest (specific intent) grounds, then there may be a valid excuse. A mistake of law, or ignorance of the law, is almost always never an excuse; the exception to this is where a statute requires a knowing violation, which is speaks to the required mens rea element of a crime.

If you require the assistance of a criminal defense attorney, please feel free to contact a criminal lawyer in our Orange County office for further assistance.