Assault With Intent to Murder or Maim

Massachusetts General Law chapter 265 § 15:
(1) Assault, with
(2) specific intent to murder or maim.

A conviction for assault with intent to murder requires that the prosecution prove that the defendant assaulted the victim with the specific intent to kill him and that he did so with malice. This means that no mitigating factors existed such as provocation, sudden combat, or self-defense. To support the charge of assault with intent to murder, the prosecution must demonstrate an actual intent to kill on the part of the defendant. In this way, the lesser offense of assault with intent to murder requires a higher degree of specificity with regard to state of mind than does the greater offense of murder, which does not necessarily require an actual intent to kill. Since the prosecution must prove a specific intent to kill, the defense may offer evidence of the defendant's intoxication at the time of the crime to negate the prosecutions assertion that he intent to kill existed.

To assault another with intent to maim or disfigure requires an assault and an intent to maim or disfigure by cutting, mutilating, or dismembering the tongue, eye, ear, nose, lip, or a limb or appendage of another person.

The maximum sentence for assault with intent to murder or maim is imprisonment for ten years or a one thousand dollar fine.

Assault With Intent to Kill

Massachusetts General Law chapter 265 § 29:
(1) Assault, with
(2) specific intent to kill without malice.

Assault with intent to kill represents a lesser included offense within assault with intent to murder. This means that assault with intent to kill shares some elements with assault with intent to murder, but is a less serious crime. The distinction between the two crimes is that the mental state the law requires for assault with intent to kill is satisfied with proof of an intent to kill, without malice, while assault with intent to murder requires proof of both an intent to kill and malice. The offense of assault with intent to kill requires only such an intention as would amount to voluntary manslaughter if the victim had died. Thus, as with voluntary manslaughter, the law requires no proof of malice, but only proof of the existence of mitigating circumstances consisting of a heat of passion induced by sudden combat or reasonable provocation.

The offense of assault with intent to kill in actuality works as an attempt to commit voluntary manslaughter charge. Because of the confusion the Supreme Judicial Court believes would ensue, it has declines to recognize attempted voluntary manslaughter. Thus, assault with intent to kill is used in its place.

The maximum sentence for assault with intent to kill is imprisonment for ten years or a one thousand dollar fine.