— also called oblique superior, obliquus superior oculi In criminal law, intent is a subjective state of mind that must accompany the acts of certain offences in order to constitute an offence. A more formal and generally synonymous legal term is scientific: intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. You might be interested in the historical significance of this term. Browse or search Oblique in Historical Law in the Encyclopedia of Law. Search the dictionary of legal abbreviations and acronyms for acronyms and/or abbreviations that contain Oblique. In some States, a distinction is made between an offence with a fundamental intent (sometimes referred to as “general”) and an offence with a specific intent. — also called external oblique, obliquus externus, obliquus externus abdominis Middle English oblique, oblike, borrowed from Anglo-French oblic, oblique, borrowed from Latin oblÄquus “oblique, transverse”, from ob- “against, turned towards” + -lÄ«quus, of uncertain meaning and origin to more oblique: The person has an oblique intention if the event is a natural consequence of a voluntary action and foresees it as such. The definition of “natural consequence” has been replaced by the criterion “practically certain” in R/Woollin. A person is now considered a (oblique) consequence if that consequence is a virtually certain consequence of his action and he knew that it was a practically certain consequence. The first step of this test was condemned as unnecessary: [full citation needed] A person should be considered an intended consequence if they believed it was a virtually certain consequence, whether or not they were virtually safe. In many situations in the United States, a person is deemed to have acted with intent when the definitions of purpose or knowledge are met. In other situations (particularly with regard to certain intentional offences whose definition is “intentional”), it can be assumed that intent relates only to purpose. Probably the most influential legal definitions of purpose and knowledge come from the definitions of mens rea in the Model Penal Code.
A court or jury to determine whether a person has committed a crime. Unconditional intent: the result expected of a person as a result of their actions. In Holloway v. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the word “intent” in a federal statute can mean “unconditional intent,” “conditional intent,” or both of a person, depending on the context and purpose of the law by Congress.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Elonis v. However, the United States did not comment on the issue of recklessness.
For example, A, a jealous woman, discovers that her husband is having a sexual affair with B. B dies in the resulting fire. A is shocked and horrified. It did not occur to him that B might be in physical danger, and there was no conscious plan in his head to injure B when the fire broke out. But if A`s behavior is analyzed, B`s death must be premeditated. If A really wanted to avoid any possibility of injury to B, she wouldn`t have started the fire. Or, if B`s verbal warning to leave was not an option, she should have waited until B left the house before starting the fire. In fact, she waited until nightfall, when it was more likely that B would be home and fewer people would be there to sound the alarm.
The intention would be less if A had set fire to the house during the day after ringing the doorbell to check that no one was home, and then immediately called the fire department to report the fire. — also known as obliquus capitis inferior, obliquus inferior In this case, the issue was whether the wording of the law “with intent to cause death or serious bodily harm” applied to the unconditional or conditional intent of a defendant. The court noted that while interpretation of the sentence suggests that Congress intended to “provide federal punishment only for carjackings where the author actually attempted to injure or kill the driver. that a reasonable reading of the carjacking law suggests that Congress intended to criminalize a wider range of conduct than attempted assault or murder during a car theft.  The Court therefore upheld Holloway`s conviction and held that a defendant`s conditional intent may be an element of a federal crime, depending on the context and purpose of the legislation. For example, a couple is planning an outdoor wedding, but also books an indoor setup in an unlikely state of bad weather. The unconditional intention is to have the wedding outside. The conditional intention is to have the wedding inside in case of bad weather. Intent is defined in English law by R. v. Mohan  QB 1 as “the decision to produce a prohibited consequence”.
Conditional intent: The expected result of a person only when a condition distracts them from their unconditional intention. A person intends a consequence when he or she 1) anticipates that it will happen if his or her given series of acts or omissions continues, and 2) desires it to happen. The highest degree of culpability, which justifies the most severe levels of punishment, is achieved when both elements are actually present in the mind of the accused (a “subjective” test). A person who plans and commits a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, to be a greater danger to the public than someone who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to be caught), whether through the sudden opportunity to steal or out of anger to hurt someone else. But the intention can also come from the point of view of the common law. Search or search Oblique in the American Encyclopedia of Law, Asian Encyclopedia of Law, European Encyclopedia of Law, UK Encyclopedia of Law, or Latin American and Spanish Encyclopedia of Law. A number of words represent shades of intent in criminal laws around the world. The mental element or mens rea of murder, for example, is traditionally expressed as malice in advance, and interpretations of malevolence, “malicious” and “deliberate,” vary between pure intent and recklessness or negligence, depending on the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed and the gravity of the offense. The intentional element of a crime, such as intent to kill, may exist without malicious motive or even with a benevolent motive, as in the case of euthanasia.  Under Article 8(b), juries therefore have broad discretion in using a hybrid test to presume intent or foresight (for reckless purposes) on the basis of all the evidence.
Direct intent: A person has a direct intention when they hear a specific consequence of their action. Purely subjectively, A intended to make B`s house uninhabitable, so a major fire was necessary. The reasonable person would have anticipated a likelihood that people would be exposed to the risk of injury. Everyone in the house, neighbours, passers-by and members of the fire department would be in danger. The court therefore assesses the likelihood that B or another person could be in the house at that time of night. The more certain the rational person would have been, the more justified it is to assume sufficient will to convert what would otherwise have been cruelty into intent to justify the murder offence. However, if the degree of probability is lower, the court sees only proven recklessness. Some states once had a criminal murder rule: a death that occurred while committing a crime automatically involved enough mens rea for murder. This rule has largely been abolished and direct proof of the required mental components is now required. For example, courts in most states use a hybrid intent test for each modified offense, combining both subjective and objective elements. Sometimes a forensic and psychiatric examination can be helpful in determining the presence or absence of mens rea in crimes that require specific intent.
 After two baseball players were injured during the playoffs.