A professional athlete became angry after a referee penalized her team during a critical game. In response, she threw her sports equipment in frustration toward the sideline. The equipment struck a bystander in the head, causing a significant injury. The athlete is charged with assault. What is the central question in determining whether the athlete acted with intent to injure?
Whether the athlete was substantially certain the act would result in harm.
Whether the athlete violated a professional code of conduct during the event.
Whether physical contact was intended and actually occurred.
Whether the athlete’s actions were negligent rather than intentional.
The correct answer is that the athlete’s intent to injure can be inferred if the act was intended to cause harm or the athlete was substantially certain harm would occur. Throwing an object in frustration in a crowded area may suggest substantial certainty of injury, even if there was no explicit intent to harm. The question targets the idea of inferred intent, which is a critical principle in cases involving reckless behavior. Answers suggesting physical contact or negligence are incorrect because they either impose a higher threshold of proving explicit contact or overlook the required mens rea for assault—which includes recklessness or intent, not just negligent acts.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is mens rea in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does 'substantially certain' mean in legal contexts?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does recklessness differ from negligence in legal terms?