# Attempted-murder legal scenarios **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 11, 2018, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempted-murder-legal-scenarios/808620 "2018-02-11T10:37:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempted-murder-legal-scenarios/808620/1 "2018-02-11T10:37:37Z")
A couple of legal scenarios I was pondering last night: [ul] [li]Jack intends to murder Kevin, and so slips some cyanide into Kevin’s food, but it’s Amy who inadvertently eats Kevin’s food instead and nearly dies as a result. Kevin is unharmed. Is Jack guilty of the attempted murder of Kevin, or Amy? What would he be charged with?[/li][li]Alternatively, say Jack sets fire to Kevin’s house with the intention of killing him, but Kevin just so happens to not be at home at that moment and so escapes death. Would Jack only be charged with arson if he keeps his mouth shut about his real motive for starting the fire?[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempted-murder-legal-scenarios/808620/2 "2018-02-11T13:26:08Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > A couple of legal scenarios I was pondering last night: > Jack intends to murder Kevin, and so slips some cyanide into Kevin’s food, but it’s Amy who inadvertently eats Kevin’s food instead and nearly dies as a result. Kevin is unharmed. Is Jack guilty of the attempted murder of Kevin, or Amy? What would he be charged with? Premeditated, intentional attempted homicide of Amy. [Intent follows the poison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transferred_intent): > [@](#): > > Transferred intent (or transferred malice in English law) is a legal doctrine that holds that, when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator is still held responsible. To be held legally responsible under the law, usually the court must demonstrate that the person has criminal intent, that is, that the person knew another would be harmed by his or her actions and wanted this harm to occur. If a murderer intends to kill John, but accidentally kills George instead, the intent is transferred from John to George, and the killer is held to have had criminal intent. > [@](#): > > Alternatively, say Jack sets fire to Kevin’s house with the intention of killing him, but Kevin just so happens to not be at home at that moment and so escapes death. Would Jack only be charged with arson if he keeps his mouth shut about his real motive for starting the fire? Keeping your mouth shut would be a good strategy here, given that [_factual_ impossibility is not a good defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_defense) (that is, claiming you’re not guilty because the crime was factually, physically impossible to commit) at least when it comes to things like murder and rape. For example, if you shoot through your ceiling to try to kill someone who _was_ upstairs but is no longer, you’re still guilty of attempted murder. How well that strategy would work is another discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempted-murder-legal-scenarios/808620/3 "2018-02-11T16:05:26Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Premeditated, intentional attempted homicide of Amy. [Intent follows the poison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transferred_intent): This seems very odd and illogical to me. I don’t understand why both the intent and the results aren’t taken into account. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems straightforward to me that Jack is now guilty of two completely separate crimes: attempted first-degree murder of Kevin, AND criminal negligence towards Amy. ---
**Author:** ![GreysonCarlisle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@GreysonCarlisle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreysonCarlisle)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempted-murder-legal-scenarios/808620/4 "2018-02-11T17:08:14Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > This seems very odd and illogical to me. I don’t understand why both the intent and the results aren’t taken into account. > > I’m not a lawyer, but it seems straightforward to me that Jack is now guilty of two completely separate crimes: attempted first-degree murder of Kevin, AND criminal negligence towards Amy. The crime against the person actually damaged should be lesser than the crime against the person who was only intended to be damaged? ---
**Author:** ![dofe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ba0ec/32.png) [@dofe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dofe)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempted-murder-legal-scenarios/808620/5 "2018-02-11T20:47:56Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > This seems very odd and illogical to me. I don’t understand why both the intent and the results aren’t taken into account. > > I’m not a lawyer, but it seems straightforward to me that Jack is now guilty of two completely separate crimes: attempted first-degree murder of Kevin, AND criminal negligence towards Amy. Transferred intent is a legal fiction that arose historically to deal with a perceived injustice in situations where A intends to shoot and kill B but ends up killing C instead. Under common law A would be guilty of two crimes: attempted murder of A and some sort of lesser crime of homicide of C short of murder (because there was no intent to kill C, there could be no murder under common law). Without the doctrine of transferred intent, A could only be charged with these two lesser crimes, which even when combined were “less serious” than murder. As this result was viewed as unjust to the victim (person C), the idea of transferred intent was developed to properly punish A. IANA(Criminal)L, so I can’t speak of how modern criminal law statutes in the various jurisdictions deal with these scenarios. But transferred intent is very much a history legal fiction that doesn’t necessarily have to make sense or be logical. In fact, transferred intent in the area of torts (as opposed to criminal law) has pretty much been done away with (e.g., [Palsgraf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palsgraf_v._Long_Island_Railroad_Co.)). ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempted-murder-legal-scenarios/808620/6 "2018-02-11T21:52:55Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Premeditated, intentional attempted homicide of Amy. [Intent follows the poison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transferred_intent): > > Keeping your mouth shut would be a good strategy here, given that [_factual_ impossibility is not a good defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_defense) (that is, claiming you’re not guilty because the crime was factually, physically impossible to commit) at least when it comes to things like murder and rape. For example, if you shoot through your ceiling to try to kill someone who _was_ upstairs but is no longer, you’re still guilty of attempted murder. > > How well that strategy would work is another discussion. Ah, perfect, thanks!