Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 Concurrent intent theory emerged from the discussion in Ford v. State, 330 Md. 682, 625 A.2d 984 (1993), in which the Court expressed its disapproval of the use of 'transferred intent' in cases where the defendant faced charges of attempted murder of a bystander. See LeEllen Coacher & Libby Gallo,   Criminal Liability: Transferred and Concurrent Intent, 44 A.F.L. REV. 227, 235 (1998). The Ford Court discussed the doctrine of 'concurrent intent' to 'explain[] and justify' the result in State v. Wilson, 313 Md. 600, 546 A.2d 1041 (1988), the case in which this Court held that 'transferred intent' could be used to prove the specific-intent element of attempted murder of a bystander. Ford, 330 Md. at 716, 625 A.2d at 1000. Explaining the distinction between 'transferred intent' and 'concurrent intent,' Judge Chasanow for the Court stated: In transferred intent, the intended harm does not occur to the intended victim, but occurs instead to a second . . . victim. The actual result is an unintended, unanticipated consequence of intended harm. For example, consider a defendant who shoots a single bullet at the head of A, standing with B and C. If the defendant misses ...

Register or login to access full content