The intent or state of mind of a criminal defendant is generally proved using circumstantial evidence. This proof is required when specific intent crimes are charged in a criminal prosecution, such as the crime of domestic assault-fear, which requires the state to prove the defendant committed “an act with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death.”

The jury must draw inferences concerning the defendant’s intent from the evidence presented at trial, such as the victim’s reaction to the crime, the type of crime, events occurring both before and after the crime, the defendant’s relationship with the victim, and the words and actions of the defendant. The reaction of the victim to the crime is considered important circumstantial evidence of the specific intent of the defendant.

Circumstantial evidence in a domestic assault-fear case could include statements made by the defendant, like “I’m going to kill you,” to prove intent to cause the victim to fear immediate bodily harm or death. Specific intent may be corroborated at trial by the physical acts of a defendant who chokes the victim or pounds her head against the wall. The reaction of a victim who testifies that she called 911, was terrified by the assault, and moved to a hotel after the crime may also be offered as circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s specific intent to commit the crime. Circumstantial evidence can also be established by the testimony of an officer regarding the victim’s prior statements that are consistent with her statements at trial.

It is important to remember that a conviction may be based on the testimony of the victim alone and does not need to be corroborated by any other evidence. An experienced and trusted Minnesota criminal defense attorney will probe all facts for evidence challenging any inference by the jury of a defendant’s specific intent to commit the crime. The prosecution has a high burden of proof in a criminal case as all the elements of a crime, including specific intent, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction. If the prosecution fails to prove even one element of the criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt, justice requires an acquittal. This is how I will defeat an unjust prosecution.