Two women, dating the same man, bump into each other on the dance floor at a suburban nightclub. An argument ensues. A punch is thrown by one of the women at the face of the other woman. The second woman ducks and the punch strikes the shared boyfriend in the eye.

Has the boyfriend been assaulted even though the woman didn=t mean to hit him or was it an accident?

A disgruntled neighbor attempts to set fire to his neighbor=s rotting fish house that has been abandoned all too close to their common property line. After the fire is started, the wind shifts and the fish house is untouched. Unfortunately, the blaze races down the property line and completely destroys an adjoining neighbor=s utility shed.

Rival gangs gather at a local park. Gang signs are flashed. A gang member pulls a gun, shouts AYou=re dead@, and fires a shot at a member of another gang. The bullet misses its intended target and strikes a child playing in the area, killing the child.

Did the gang member commit murder by causing the death of a human being with intent to effect the death or manslaughter by creating an unreasonable risk and consciously taking a chance of death or great bodily harm to another?

Under the doctrine of Atransferred intent@, when one person acts with intent to harm another person, but instead harms a third person whom he did not intend to harm, he is just as guilty as if he actually harmed the intended victim.

Looking at the scenarios above, in each case the intent would transfer from the intended victim to the unintended victim. Each of the perpetrators could be charged with an intentional criminal act (assault, criminal damage to property, or murder) against the unintended victim.

In scenario one, the woman throwing the punch could be charged with Assault for striking the boyfriend, even though the injury to him was unintended.

In scenario two, the firebug engaging in self-help neighborhood renovation committed an intentional act of destruction when his intent was carried by the flames to the Ainnocent@ utility shed.

Finally, in scenario three, the shooter could be charged with Murder because his intent to effect the death of his intended target transferred to the child victim.

Meaning, in scenario one, the puncher could be charged with assault on the girlfriend for throwing the punch which was an Aattempt to inflict bodily harm upon another@ and a second count of assault for striking the boyfriend. And, in scenario three, the shooter could be convicted of attempted murder for shooting at the intended victim and also be convicted of murder for killing the child.

Warning: However, intent does not always transfer in all cases. The doctrine of transferred intent does not apply where the level or type of harm is not the same. If the harms are different, intent is not transferable. For example, in the first scenario, assume the bullet misses everyone and strikes the windshield of a nearby parked car. Could the shooter be charged with Criminal Damage to Property? Answer - no. The intent does not transfer. The windshield was not shot out intentionally and, clearly, the level of harm intended is not the same. As a result, the intent to assault or kill cannot substitute for the intent required to convict for Criminal Damage to Property.

Likewise, a hunter using a road sign for target practice could not be charged with assault with a firearm if one of his fired bullets misses the sign and parts the hair of a member of his hunting party. The intent to damage the sign is not the same level or type of harm created by a bullet nearly striking a person in the head.

In addition, and perhaps it goes without saying, where there is no intent present to transfer, the doctrine of transferred intent does not apply. If the intended crime does not require a specified intent, such as the intent to kill, intent to inflict bodily harm, intent to cause fear, or the intent to damage property, then there is no intent to transfer to the unintended crime. An example: A driver is fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle. While fleeing, the driver loses control of his vehicle and runs over several mailboxes and a fence, but there is no evidence the fleeing driver intentionally damaged the property. Can the driver be charged with Criminal Damage to Property as well as Fleeing a Peace Officer in a Motor Vehicle? Answer - no. Fleeing a Peace Officer in a Motor Vehicle does not require a specific intent. There is no intent to transfer to the crime of Criminal Damage to Property. So, unless there is independent evidence to prove the property was intentionally damaged, the Criminal Damage to Property charge should not issue.