Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 13A-2-2 (2026)

Definitions - Definitions of Culpable Mental State.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The following definitions apply to this Criminal Code:

(1) INTENTIONALLY. A person acts intentionally with respect to a result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense, when his purpose is to cause that result or to engage in that conduct.

(2) KNOWINGLY. A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that the circumstance exists.

(3) RECKLESSLY. A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. A person who creates a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication, as defined in subdivision (e)(2) of Section 13A-3-2, acts recklessly with respect thereto.

(4) CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance which is defined by statute as an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. A court or jury may consider statutes or ordinances regulating the defendant’s conduct as bearing upon the question of criminal negligence.

(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §305.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 90 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Ex Parte Edwards, 816 So. 2d 98 (Ala. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ex Parte Edwards, 816 So. 2d 98 (Ala. 2001). · cites it 11× “" § 13A-2-2, Ala.Code 1975. The commentary [3] to § 13A-2-2 states: "This section attempts to identify, define and reasonably delimit the main culpable mental states involved in the criminal law.”

Sullens v. State, 878 So. 2d 1216 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). · cites it 7× “In this regard, § 13A-2-2, Ala.Code 1975, provides: "The following definitions apply to this Criminal Code: "(1) Intentionally.”

Burnett v. State, 807 So. 2d 573 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). · cites it 9× “The commentary to § 13A-2-2 points out that the drafters of the Criminal Code recognized states of mental culpability other than those defined in that section: "It would be impossible to review, much less reconcile and make clear and uniform, the myriad of Alabama statutes and…”

Lee Carrell v. United States (Revised Version), 165 A.3d 314 (D.C. 2017). · cites it 2× “See Ala. Code § 13A-2-2 (2017); Alaska Stat. § 11.”

Boyle v. State, 154 So. 3d 171 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “” The Alabama Supreme Court, in addressing a circuit court’s use of a jury charge in a capital-murder case that contained the exact definition of “intentional” contained in § 13A-2-2(l), stated: “The trial court, in defining mental culpability, read Code 1975, § 13A-2-2, to the…”

Scott v. State, 917 So. 2d 159 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “In fact, it does not exclude any of the states of mental culpability set forth in § 13A-2-2, Ala.Code 1975. As did the Alabama Supreme Court in Edwards , we interpret the fact that the statute does not specifically exclude any states of mental culpability to be an indication of…”

Haney v. State, 603 So. 2d 368 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “" The trial court, without reference to any presumption, properly instructed the jury on the definition of intent under the law, "A person acts intentionally with respect to a result or to conduct when his purpose is to cause that result or to engage in that conduct.”

Blackmon v. State, 7 So. 3d 397 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Section 13A-2-2(4), Code of Alabama 1975, states that `[a] person acts with criminal negligence .”

Harrison v. State, 879 So. 2d 594 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “In this regard, § 13A-2-2, Ala.Code 1975, provides: "`The following definitions apply to this Criminal Code: "`(1) Intentionally.”

Burnett v. State, 807 So. 2d 588 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “In Ex parte Edwards, the Alabama Supreme Court stated, "An indictment under § 32-5A-192(b) should charge an appropriate mental state based on § 13A-2-2(2) to (4)." ___ So.2d at ___. Because the indictment in this case did not charge such a mental state, based on Ex parte…”

Ex Parte Long, 600 So. 2d 982 (Ala. 1992). · cites it 3× “" "§ 13A-2-2 Definitions of culpable mental state.”

Henderson v. State, 248 So. 3d 992 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “" § 13A-2-2(1), Ala. Code 1975. This Court has repeatedly observed that intent is a state of mind that is rarely, if ever, established by direct evidence and must be inferred from the facts.”

Show all 90 citing cases →

— Ala. Code § 13A-2-2(1) — 14 cases

Haney v. State, 603 So. 2d 368 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). “" The trial court, without reference to any presumption, properly instructed the jury on the definition of intent under the law, "A person acts intentionally with respect to a result or to conduct when his purpose is to cause that result or to engage in that conduct.”

Ex Parte Edwards, 816 So. 2d 98 (Ala. 2001). “" § 13A-2-2, Ala.Code 1975. The commentary [3] to § 13A-2-2 states: "This section attempts to identify, define and reasonably delimit the main culpable mental states involved in the criminal law.”

Henderson v. State, 248 So. 3d 992 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017). “" § 13A-2-2(1), Ala. Code 1975. This Court has repeatedly observed that intent is a state of mind that is rarely, if ever, established by direct evidence and must be inferred from the facts.”

Sullens v. State, 878 So. 2d 1216 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “In this regard, § 13A-2-2, Ala.Code 1975, provides: "The following definitions apply to this Criminal Code: "(1) Intentionally.”

Ex Parte Simmons, 649 So. 2d 1282 (Ala. 1994).

— Ala. Code § 13A-2-2(2) — 11 cases

Burnett v. State, 807 So. 2d 588 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001). “In Ex parte Edwards, the Alabama Supreme Court stated, "An indictment under § 32-5A-192(b) should charge an appropriate mental state based on § 13A-2-2(2) to (4)." ___ So.2d at ___. Because the indictment in this case did not charge such a mental state, based on Ex parte…”

A.L.L. v. State, 42 So. 3d 146 (Ala. 2009).

Chatman v. State, 813 So. 2d 956 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001).

A.L.L. v. State, 42 So. 3d 138 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008).

— Ala. Code § 13A-2-2(3) — 29 cases

Sheffield v. State, 87 So. 3d 607 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).

Ex Parte Long, 600 So. 2d 982 (Ala. 1992). “" "§ 13A-2-2 Definitions of culpable mental state.”

Jones v. State, 217 So. 3d 947 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016).

— Ala. Code § 13A-2-2(4) — 20 cases

Blackmon v. State, 7 So. 3d 397 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006). “Section 13A-2-2(4), Code of Alabama 1975, states that `[a] person acts with criminal negligence .”

Minor v. State, 780 So. 2d 707 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999).

Burgess v. State, 811 So. 2d 557 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998).

— Ala. Code § 13A-2-2(a) — 1 case

Thomas v. Myers (N.D. Ala. 2019).

— Ala. Code § 13A-2-2(l) — 5 cases

Boyle v. State, 154 So. 3d 171 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). “” The Alabama Supreme Court, in addressing a circuit court’s use of a jury charge in a capital-murder case that contained the exact definition of “intentional” contained in § 13A-2-2(l), stated: “The trial court, in defining mental culpability, read Code 1975, § 13A-2-2, to the…”

Gobble v. State, 104 So. 3d 920 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).

Sale v. State, 8 So. 3d 330 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008).

Hill v. State, 415 So. 2d 1255 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982).

Ferrera v. State, 709 So. 2d 507 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.