With regard to the element of intent to kill or the purpose of killing, which is currently required for the purpose of proving the offense of attempted murder, it was determined that it overlaps with the term "decision to kill", which, according to the law that preceded Amendment 137 to the Penal Law, was one of the elements of "first intent". Regarding the basis of the decision to kill, it was held that it must be proven that the defendant foresaw the possibility that the fatal outcome would occur, and that he wished that the same result to take place.Criminal Appeal 1474/14 Anonymous v. State of Israel (15.12.2015)).
In view of the difficulty of tracing the intricacies of a person's psyche, when it is not always possible to prove the defendant's subjective thought with direct evidence, a "presumption of intent" was developed in case law, according to which a person is presumed to be referring to the natural consequences arising from his actions. In other words, insofar as the act that was committed was possible, by its nature and nature, to cause the fatal result, when, for reasons that are not dependent on the defendant, this result was prevented, it is presumed that he intended the consequences deriving, naturally and with a high probability, from his conduct. As stated, the presumption of intent is not an absolute presumption, and the defendant can contradict it by bringing evidence, providing a plausible explanation for his actions, or presenting a reasonable alternative conclusion to the presumption, in a manner that will give rise to reasonable doubt as to his intention. In order to assist the court in deciding the question of the existence of the presumption of intent in order to prove the basis of the decision to kill, a number of auxiliary tests were formulated in the case law, from which it is possible to learn both about the expectation of the possibility of the lethal outcome and about the defendant's aspiration to realize the lethal outcome. As part of these auxiliary tests, the various circumstances of the incident are examined, including: the manner in which the attempted murder was carried out; the means used to commit the offense; the location of the injury to the victim's body, the number, nature and intensity of the injuries; previous statements by the accused; and his behavior before and after the incident, such as fleeing the scene and the lack of an attempt to call for help (see, for example: Criminal Appeal 8577/22 Yafimov v. State of Israel (21.4.2024); Criminal Appeal 3647/15 Al-Assem v. State of Israel (29.3.2017); Criminal Appeal 8686/15 Gribov v. State of Israel (3.10.2017); Criminal Appeal 4523/14 Khalili v. State of Israel (20.1.2016)).