Mistaken identity as a defense?????

[MissMillie]

The dozen people that have been charged in the shooting of David Ortiz are saying it was a case of mistaken identity.

So... that means they intended to kill someone else? How the hell is THAT okay?

[qazplm135]

1. it's not

but when they are in jail maybe it keeps them from being killed in retribution...or so they hope.

[Igel]

2. Yup, that's the claim.

They wanted to kill a certain person, and they matched up that person with David Ortiz's face and body.

They hit the body that they aimed at.

It makes "intent" difficult. Sort of like when a sniper aims and kills somebody, then says it was a mistake. Detractors say, "No mistake, you aimed and killed that person intentionally." But the sniper's response is, "I intended to kill a person, I thought I was aiming that that person, but it was the wrong person."

[Ms. Toad]

4. If the identity of the person was relevant

as an element of the crime, then transferred intent applies - to prevent the very result you suggested.

[Ms. Toad]

3. It's not.

If the identity of the person was part of the crime (e.g. you have to establish they had a definite intent to kill a specific person and a scheme to carry it out), but you kill the wrong person, transferred intent applies. (This is generally aggravated murder or 1st degree murder)

If the identity of the person is not at issue (i.e all you have to prove is tha tyou intentinoally killed a person (any person), then you don't even need transferred intent - since the identity is irrelevant. (In Ohio simple murder; other places likely 2nd degree murder)

[struggle4progress]

5. Under the old common law, it's no defense: the intent to harm someone is malice, and if you harm

someone else that's a blatant act