Delaware Code

11 Del. C. § 262 (2026)

Intentional or knowing causation; different result from that expected

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The element of intentional or knowing causation is not established if the actual result is outside the intention or the contemplation of the defendant unless:

(1) The actual result differs from that intended or contemplated, as the case may be, only in the respect that a different person or different property is injured or affected or that the injury or harm intended or contemplated would have been more serious or more extensive than that caused; or

(2) The actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as the probable result and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a bearing on the actor’s liability or on the gravity of the offense.

11 Del. C. 1953, § 262; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1;

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Ford v. State, 625 A.2d 984 (Md. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ford v. State, 625 A.2d 984 (Md. 1993). · cites it 2× “11 Del.C. § 262. The Delaware statute essentially tracks § 2.”

State v. Church (Del. Super. Ct. 2025). · cites it 3× “The first is that the jury’s verdict acquitting Defendant of Assault in the First Degree but convicting him of Assault in the Second Degree shows that the jury concluded that Defendant acted recklessly, not intentionally.”

State v. Henry (Del. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “In fact, the law specifically allows for an offender to be convicted based on the theory of “transferred intent,” as set forth in 11 Del.C. §262: The element of intentional or knowing causation is not established if the actual result is outside the intention or the contemplation…”

Carlo v. State (Del. 2016). “14 11 Del. C. § 262. 8 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.”

Clark v. State (Del. 2020). “41 11 Del. C. § 262(1). This is known as the doctrine of transferred intent.”

State v. Church (Del. Super. Ct. 2025). “30 See 11 Del. C. § 262 (“The element of intentional or knowing causation is not established if the actual result is outside the intention or the contemplation of the defendant unless: .”

— 11 Del. C. § 262(1) — 2 cases

Clark v. State (Del. 2020). “41 11 Del. C. § 262(1). This is known as the doctrine of transferred intent.”

State v. Henry (Del. Super. Ct. 2024). “In fact, the law specifically allows for an offender to be convicted based on the theory of “transferred intent,” as set forth in 11 Del.C. §262: The element of intentional or knowing causation is not established if the actual result is outside the intention or the contemplation…”

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.