DE · jury_instructions
Del. P.J.I. Crim. No. 4.28
Intentional or Knowing Causation [Different Result than Expected]
INTENTIONAL OR KNOWING CAUSATION
[DIFFERENT RESULT THAN EXPECTED]
An element of [charge] is that the defendant [intentionally/knowingly]
caused [result]. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant actually intended the result.
The State has met its burden of proof when the actual result differed from
the intended result: only because a different [person/property] was injured or
affected; or only because the injury or harm intended would have been more
serious than the actual injury or harm.
You must compare the actual result with the intended result. You must
decide: whether the actual result involved the same kind of injury or harm as the
intended result; whether the actual injury or harm was close in time to the intended
result; and whether the actual result was accidental. If you find a sufficient
relationship between the intended harm and the actual harm, you may find that the
State has met its burden of proof.
Provenance
- Source
- courts.delaware.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-23
- Edition
- crim-2022-03-14
- Content hash
23a5a5fa9668714642522051d4a78052f067b6a956d82aec0923dd1890355a4f
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.