"requisite intent" v.s. "intent"

Question

Hi,I can't wrap my head around the difference between "requisite intent" and just "intent". I couldn't find a clear definition, in layman terms, of the "requisite intent", all I was able to dredge up on "requisite intent" is this wooly definition: "The requisite intent implies a specific purpose to accomplish the consummation of the crime, and must be alleged and proved by the State"But following this definition, doesn't "requisite intent" mean the exact same thing as just "intent" does. Could you tell me what special meaning the adjective "requisite" adds to the phrase at issue ?Thanks in advancePS:I heard this phrase in this context:Bryan acted with requisite intent for manslaughter in the first degree

Clive · Accepted Answer

Hi,

Here's my opinion as a non-lawyer.

Bryan acted with requisite intent for murder in the first degree.

This means he had the degree and type of intent that the law, in Canada, says is required in order for him to be guilty of this crime. Essentially, the requisite intent involves premeditation. For example, he spent a year planning the crime.

Fred acted with requisite intent for murder in the second degree.

This means he had the degree and type of intent that the law, in Canada, says is required in order for him to be guilty of this crime. Essentially, the requisite intent involves, for example, a moment of hot-blooded anger, but not premeditation. For example, he hit his friend and killed him in a momentary flash of rage which he immediately regretted.

Tom was found guilty of manslaughter.

He was driving his car while drunk, and hit someone. He had no intent to kill anyone.

For manslaughter, at least in Canada, no intent is required, so the law does not speak of requisite intent. Inappropriate carelessness is enough.

Best wishes, Clive

MrPernickety · Answer

Clear as day !

Thanks, Clive !

"requisite intent" v.s. "intent"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions