A Bad Outcome Doesn’t Always Tell You What Someone Intended
One of the first things I have to figure out in some criminal cases is not simply what happened, but what my client intended to happen. Those can be two very different questions. Something terrible can happen because someone intended for it to happen. It can also happen because somebody acted recklessly, was negligent, made a mistake or caused an accident. The result may look exactly the same. How we got there can be very different, and in a criminal case that distinction can determine how I approach the entire defense.
I’ve had a case that illustrates this about as well as anything. My client was in a vehicle leaving a situation when he saw someone on the other side holding up a gun. He wanted to fire a warning shot. His intention was not to shoot the other person, and he fired nowhere near where he believed the shot would hit anyone. Unfortunately, the bullet ricocheted and struck a passenger in the other vehicle. That’s obviously a serious result, and saying, “I didn’t mean for that to happen,” doesn’t make the consequences disappear. But it does raise a very important question about what crime, if any, the facts actually support.
It also demonstrates why the theory of the defense matters. A warning-shot theory and a self-defense theory are not the same thing. If I’m saying the gun accidentally discharged or that my client intentionally fired a warning shot without intending to shoot another person, I can’t simply turn around and present a completely inconsistent version of events by saying he intentionally shot the person because he was acting in self-defense. Self-defense involves the intentional use of force that the person believes is necessary in response to unlawful force. An accident, on the other hand, starts from the position that the resulting injury wasn’t what the person intended. Those distinctions aren’t just semantics. They affect how we evaluate the evidence, what law applies and ultimately how we present the case. Alabama’s self-defense statute likewise frames the defense in terms of a person’s use of force based on what he or she reasonably believes is necessary.
That’s why intent matters so much. A bad outcome doesn’t automatically tell us what was going through someone’s mind before it happened. We have to work backward from the evidence. What was happening immediately before the incident? What did the person say? What did witnesses see? Is there video? Are there text messages or other communications? What does the physical evidence show? Jurors understandably want the smoking gun. They want something concrete that supports one version of events rather than being asked to choose between two people telling completely different stories.
Sometimes the problem we face is that the charge itself starts at the most serious possible version of what happened. I’ve represented people charged with offenses where, after looking at my client’s actual involvement, I simply did not believe the evidence supported the intent the State was alleging. In one capital murder case, for example, my client wasn’t involved in what happened at the beginning. His involvement came afterward. From my perspective, that presented a fundamental question: how do you prove that he intended for someone to die when the evidence doesn’t show that he was involved in the events that initially led to the person’s death?
That doesn’t mean involvement after the fact can’t have legal consequences. It can. It also doesn’t mean that because the most serious charge may not fit, nothing criminal happened. Those are exactly the distinctions we have to deal with. Alabama law recognizes different levels of culpability for a reason. Intentional conduct isn’t automatically the same as reckless conduct, and reckless conduct isn’t automatically the same as criminal negligence. The fact that somebody caused a dangerous or even tragic result doesn’t relieve us of the responsibility to determine which one the evidence actually supports. Alabama’s pattern criminal instructions expressly distinguish intentionally, knowingly, recklessly and criminal negligence, and its homicide instructions separately address intentional murder, reckless manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.
There is another side to this that I have to discuss honestly with my clients. Fighting the intent required for the offense the State charged doesn’t necessarily mean the jury will face an all-or-nothing decision. Depending on the evidence and the law applicable to the case, lesser-included offenses may come into play. Alabama’s criminal rules expressly contemplate situations in which the evidence may be insufficient for a greater offense while supporting a lesser one. As the defense lawyer, I have to be fully prepared to fight the actual charge against my client, but I also have to recognize the danger created by what my client actually did and talk honestly with him about the possible outcomes.
That’s sometimes a difficult conversation. A client may hear me say that I don’t believe the State can prove he intentionally caused a particular result and assume that means I think we’re completely in the clear. That’s not necessarily what I’m saying. If his actions were reckless and someone was seriously injured or killed, that still matters. If what happened resulted from criminal negligence rather than intent, that distinction matters too. My job isn’t to force the facts into the defense that sounds best. It’s to determine which defense actually fits the evidence and then understand the risks that come with it.
The same thing is true when I’m talking to a jury. I don’t think it’s enough to stand up and repeatedly say my client didn’t intend for something bad to happen. I want evidence supporting that conclusion. If there’s video that shows what happened, I want it. If the physical evidence is inconsistent with the State’s theory, I want the jury to understand why. If the surrounding circumstances explain my client’s actions differently, we have to put those circumstances in context. Jurors don’t know my client when they walk into the courtroom. They have to make a decision from the evidence they’re allowed to hear, and I want to give them something more concrete than simply asking them to take my client’s word for it.
Criminal cases can involve awful outcomes. Someone may be injured. Someone may die. Families may be permanently changed. A defense lawyer doesn’t have to minimize any of that to insist that the State prove the crime it actually charged. The severity of the result and the defendant’s state of mind are related issues, but they aren’t necessarily the same issue.
Sometimes a person intended exactly what happened. Sometimes he did something incredibly dangerous without intending the ultimate result. Sometimes he was negligent. Sometimes it truly was an accident. Figuring out which one we’re dealing with isn’t an excuse for the consequences.
It’s part of determining what actually happened and what the law says that person is responsible for.
Brett H. Knight is a partner at Jaffe, Hanle, Whisonant & Knight, P.C. His practice includes criminal defense in Alabama state and federal courts.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Every criminal case is different, and past results do not guarantee a particular outcome.
For more information, contact an experienced Birmingham criminal defense attorney at Jaffe, Hanle, Whisonant & Knight, P.C. for a free consultation.
We proudly serve clients in Birmingham and all throughout Alabama.
Jaffe, Hanle, Whisonant & Knight, P.C.
2320 Arlington Ave S, Suite 100, Birmingham, AL 35205
(205) 930-9800