Blog

What Happens if an Innocent Bystander is Killed or Hurt? The Doctrine of Transferable Intent

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Mar 05, 2020 | 0 Comments

The law in Pennsylvania cares more about the fact that you wanted to commit a violent crime and then affirmatively acted on that intent, than the fact that the person you wanted to hurt escaped free from harm.

Perhaps nowhere is this more apparent than in the doctrine of transferable intent, which holds a defendant accountable for trying to hurt or kill one person, but harming someone else.

Transferable Intent in Pennsylvania

The concept of transferable intent is fairly straightforward: If you intend to hurt or kill Person A, but you end up hurting or killing Person B, instead, the intent that you had towards Person A transfers to Person B.

You may not have intended to hurt Person B, but the law thinks it sufficient that you intended to hurt Person A.

Crimes Where Intent Can Transfer

Virtually any violent crime that requires intentional conduct can be subject to the doctrine of transferable intent.

Only the most common examples include:

In any of these cases, a defendant can be held liable for hurting or killing an innocent bystander, so long as they intended to hurt or kill the targeted victim.

A Classic Example in Pennsylvania: Commonwealth v. Gaynor

An excellent, and succinct, example of transferable intent comes from a 1994 case that went before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. That case, Commonwealth v. Gaynor, began with a duel-like shootout between two people in an arcade. While neither of the shooters was killed, or even hit, by the bullets, one of the children in the arcade was killed and two others were wounded.

Expert testimony traced the bullets back to the gun used by one of the shooters. He was convicted of first-degree murder for the intentional killing of the child, as well as for both simple and aggravated assault for intentionally hurting the other two children he had shot.

While much of the court's attention was paid to the shooter who did not hit the children and whether he should be held liable for murder, as well, the doctrine of transferable intent was settled. While the shooter didn't mean to kill those people, it was enough that he intended to kill.

How Does This Apply to Stray Bullets?

Transferable intent comes up again and again in situations where someone shoots a gun at someone else, misses, and hits a bystander standing somewhere behind their intended target. Only just recently, a woman was hit by a stray bullet in Philadelphia while walking her dog.

Just like in the arcade shootout, when innocent bystanders get hit and hurt, the intent to kill someone does not disappear.

Joseph D. Lento: Criminal Defense in Philadelphia

Joseph D. Lento is a criminal defense lawyer in Philadelphia who serves people who have been accused of a crime. Contact him online or call his law office at (215) 535-5353 for the legal help you need to raise the defenses necessary to combat a serious criminal charge and protect your future.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Joseph D. Lento has more than a decade of experience fighting for the futures of his clients in criminal courtrooms in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, as well as New Jersey. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!

footer-2.jpg

Attorney Joseph D. Lento has more than a decade of experience successfully resolving clients' criminal charges in Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania counties. If you are having any uncertainties about what the future may hold for you or a loved one, contact the Lento Law Firm today! Criminal defense attorney Joseph D. Lento will go above and beyond the needs of any client, and will fight until the final bell rings.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations – the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Berks, Lancaster, Lehigh, and Northampton County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.

Menu