5 Doctrine of Transferred Malice

The rule: where A intends to kill/harm B but, by bad aim or mistake, harms C instead, A's malice "transfers" from the intended to the actual victim: A is guilty as though the mens matched the actual result — transferred malice (the classic common-law image: the man who aims at one and kills another is guilty of murder, not accident). The rationale: the culpability (intent to kill a humanbeing) matches the harm (a human being killed); criminal law protects people generally, not particular targets — the abstract human is the victim of intention.Its limits (the analytical points that earn first-class marks):1. Same-offence-type limit: malice transfers only within the same offence class — the intent to burn B's house and the resulting destruction of C's house transfers; but the man who intends to rape B and, in the dark, assaults C with different conduct does not simply transfer (the Pembleton-type problem: intention to commit one type of offence cannot transfer to a different type);2. Concurrence problems: where the intended victim's harm and the actual victim's harm both occur (double event) — some systems charge two offences, others one; transferred malice's economy is not perfect;3. Aberratio ictus vs. error in objecto: the miss (wrong victim by bad aim — transferred malice applies) vs. the mistake about the victim's identity (shooting a scarecrow-believed-…