Lack of intent to commit a crime may be strong criminal defense

One element of being found guilty on criminal charges is having the intent to commit that particular crime. However, in the absence of direct evidence to support intent it can be very difficult to determine an individual’s motivation behind their actions, which allows for a strong criminal defense approach. Circumstantial or witness evidence may sometimes help prove the element of intent. But in one recent New Jersey case, an eventual verdict of not guilty turned on the prosecutor’s inability to prove the defendant’s intent.

The case involved a woman who was accused of feeding black bears on her property. The defendant, a known bear activist, had previously been convicted of the crime in 2008 when she was seen feeding the bears while under surveillance after neighbors complained about the bears on her property. She was given a written warning for that offense, but conviction of a second offense would result in a fine of up to $1000.

The second investigation began when the woman reported hunters on her property in Dec. 2011 shortly after black bear hunting season began. Responding officers were unable to locate the hunters but did find food items which could be used to feed bears. The officers also found numerous mounds of bear excrement on the property as well as what they claim were bear prints on the woman’s front door.

At trial, the woman’s attorney argued that no one had seen her place the food on her property and that even if she did, the food found by the officers could attract any wild animal, not just bears. If her intent was to feed some of these other animals, then she was not intentionally feeding bears. The judge agreed that no intent could be found or imputed to the defendant.

Whether or not the woman’s actual intent was to feed the bears, prosecutors had an uphill battle in proving that intent absent any hard evidence. In New Jersey and other states, even those occurrences that look like an obvious violation of law must meet all of the statutory criteria of the crime in question in order to receive a guilty verdict. Even with physical or eyewitness evidence of a crime, proving subjective intent may always be the most difficult element in this type of case, making it a good focus for a solid criminal defense.

Source: The West Milford Messenger, “Not guilty in bear feeding case,” Chris Wyman, Sept. 20, 2012