Opinion ID: 1349911
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lack of Intent

Text: Defendant testified that he did not intend to kill the victim and that he intended only to molest her. More specifically, defendant claims that when he was attempting to silence the victim, he accidentally suffocated her. This testimony is belied by the fact that the victim was found with bruises and abrasions located all over her face and body, some of which were pre-mortem. She also suffered a blunt force injury to her head, which caused a hemorrhage of the scalp. Defendant was unable to explain these injuries. Additionally, the jury was divided over whether the murder was premeditated or felony murder. In evaluating whether lack of intent constitutes a mitigating factor, we previously have stated: Traditionally, the term intent has encompassed more than a desire or purpose to achieve a specific result. Generally, when a defendant acts with the knowledge that his behavior is substantially likely to cause a result he is considered to intend that result. State v. Jordan, 126 Ariz. 283, 288, 614 P.2d 825, 830 (1980). Defendant testified that after he forcibly blocked the victim's air passages, she struggled and gasped for air. At his sentencing hearing, defendant further acknowledged that the victim was fighting for her life when this accident occurred. Even if we were to accept defendant's claim that he did not desire to kill the victim, the fact remains that he still acted with knowledge that his behavior was substantially likely to cause this result. [4] We therefore agree with the trial judge that this mitigating circumstance is inapplicable.