What is the Transferred Intent Doctrine in Florida?

August 28, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

In Florida, the transferred intent doctrine is not widely discussed – but it is an important aspect of many criminal laws in the state. The transferred intent doctrine applies when a defendant intends to harm one person but unintentionally harms another. 

The doctrine transfers the defendant’s intent from the intended victim to the actual victim for purposes of criminal liability. If someone attempted to harm one person and failed, and unintentionally harmed another person (such as attempting to punch a target and hitting a passerby), someone may face the same charges as if the act was done to the intended victim.

This blog will explore the doctrine of transferred intent in Florida, and provide examples of when it does and does not apply.

The transferred intent doctrine most commonly is applied to violent crimes such as murder, attempted murder, assault, aggravated assault, and battery.

Examples of when the transferred intent doctrine may be invoked include the following:

• D aims a gun attempting to murder A, fires, and kills B. D can be charged with murder of B even though he did not intend to kill B – because he attempted to murder A and B died as a result.
• C throws a brick at E’s head. The brick misses and hits a bystander, F, knocking F unconscious and causing serious head trauma. C can be charged with felony aggravated battery for the great bodily injury he inflicted upon F, even though E was his target.
• D points a loaded firearm at A and threatens to shoot. B is behind A and develops a well-founded fear of imminent violence because they are located in the path of D’s potential gunfire. Even though D’s intended target was A, D may be charged with aggravated assault on B.

As transferred intent operates to transfer the defendant’s intent with respect to the intended victim to the actual victim, someone will face the same charges (no less serious and no more serious) for the harm done to the actual victim as if it had been done to the intended victim. Miller v. State, 636 So.2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)

This has become relevant in some cases where the actual (but unintended) victim of the offense is a protected group under Florida law (such as law enforcement or school employees), offenses against whom carry heavier potential sentences. Mordica v. State, 618 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); S.G. v. State, 29 So. 3d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)

In Mordica, the appellant was convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer (a third-degree felony) after he intended to kick another person and instead kicked the officer. All parties to the case noted that if Mordica had instead kicked the intended victim, this would have been simple battery, a first-degree misdemeanor.

On appeal, Mordica argued that he could not be convicted of felony battery on a law enforcement officer because the transferred intent doctrine limits his culpability to what the completed offense would have been if the intended victim was actually kicked (in this case, misdemeanor battery). 

The court agreed, holding that the doctrine of transferred intent permitted a misdemeanor battery conviction in Mordica’s case, but not a felony battery conviction. Even though an officer was the victim, the court held that Mordica intended to commit first-degree misdemeanor battery. Under the transferred intent doctrine, he could not be convicted of anything more than that. 

A similar ruling was handed down in S.G. v. State. There, S.G. threw a stapler at a classmate and instead hit a teacher. S.G. was charged with third-degree felony battery on a school employee (up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine), even though his aim was to hit the student with a stapler (first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine).

Like in Mordica, the S.G. court ultimately reversed S.G.’s conviction for felony battery. Because S.G.’s intended crime was misdemeanor battery, under the doctrine of transferred intent, he could not be convicted of a felony because the stapler accidentally hit a teacher instead. 

In murder cases, courts have held that if the defendant attempts to murder one victim and instead kills another, they may face the same charges they would have faced for murdering the intended victim. Provenzano v. State, 497 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 1986); Sagner v. State, 791 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). 

However, the transferred intent doctrine does not apply to attempted murder. This is because transferred intent is rendered inapplicable if no death results – the completed crime would involve the actual death of a victim. Bell v. State, 768 So.2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)

Moreover, someone cannot be convicted of attempted murder if additional victims are injured in the process of the defendant killing their intended victim. As the intended act was completed, there is no intent to kill to transfer to the other victims who were injured and not targeted for murder. Shellman v. State, 620 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)

A common question is whether the doctrine of transferred intent applies to property crimes, such as criminal mischief. In some cases, someone may accidentally damage another’s property while attempting to harm a person. Can they be charged with a property crime as a result?

The answer to this is no – courts in Florida have consistently held that the doctrine of transferred intent does not transfer to property if property is unintentionally damaged while a defendant is trying to harm a person. In Interest of J.G., 655 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

In J.G., a juvenile offender attempted to punch a victim and missed, breaking a car window in the process. He was charged with criminal mischief for damage to the property that was caused by the punch under a broad reading of the doctrine of transferred intent. J.G. was convicted and appealed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled in J.G.’s favor, reversing his conviction. Noting that criminal mischief requires a willful and malicious act that is directed towards damaging property itself, the court held that a punch that was not intended to damage the window could not be used as the grounds for a criminal mischief conviction.

In sum, the doctrine of transferred intent allows the defendant’s criminal intent towards an intended victim to be legally transferred to an unintended victim who suffers harm as a result of the defendant’s act. This is often applied in cases involving crimes such as murder, battery, or aggravated assault.

Transferred intent cannot be applied to enhance charges against a defendant because the actual (unintended) victim is in a class under Florida law that authorizes more severe penalties. 

For example, when a defendant intends to commit misdemeanor battery and unintentionally commits what would be considered felony battery (on a law enforcement officer, etc.), that defendant is limited to facing misdemeanor battery charges. Mordica v. State, 618 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)

Moreover, the doctrine of transferred intent does not apply to crimes against property. For offenses such as criminal mischief, someone must specifically intend to damage the property. If property is accidentally damaged in the process of the defendant attempting to commit another offense (such as battery in J.G.), courts have ruled that the defendant’s criminal intent is not transferable.

In a criminal mischief case, it is vital to have the best representation possible, as this charge can carry heavy criminal and financial penalties. Don Pumphrey Jr. and the attorneys at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting to win for clients across the state of Florida.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share