In order to determine whether the defendant made a "decision to kill" by means of the presumption of intent, the courts are assisted by a system of circumstantial facts surrounding the incident. In this framework, objective auxiliary tests are examined, such as: the means used to commit the offense (for example, the use of lethal firearms or cold weapons); the location of the injury on the victim's body (damage to sensitive and vital areas such as the chest, heart, or neck); the number, nature and intensity of the injuries; statements and exchanges before the act; and the defendant's behavior before and after the incident (such as fleeing the scene and refraining from calling for medical help).
In this regard, see the words of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal 8577/22 Yafimov v. State of Israel [paragraph 31 of the judgment of the Honorable Judge Elron] (April 21,2024):
"The examination of the mental element of a defendant is concerned with his state of mind from a subjective point of view. Hence the inherent difficulty, from an evidentiary point of view, to determine whether a person wishes to cause the death of another, or whether he has shown mere equanimity vis-à-vis this difficult possibility. For this purpose, the "presumption of intent" was developed as an evidentiary tool, in which the court is required to examine objective circumstances that may indicate the state of mind of a defendant. This presumption is a factual-evidentiary presumption, according to which a reasonable person acting of his own free will intends to bring about the natural consequences of his action. The presumption is based on the fact that, according to life experience, a person who adopts a certain line of behavior is presumed to have intended the consequences that derive, naturally and with high probability, from his conduct. With this presumption, the court makes use of the set of circumstantial facts surrounding the event, in order to establish a presumption as to the defendant's will... The presumption of intention is not a conclusive presumption and it is sufficient for the defendant to raise reasonable doubt by way of presenting a reasonable alternative conclusion or presenting evidence that contradicts the presumption in order to contradict it... Only in the absence of a reasonable doubt, as stated, does the factual presumption become a conclusive presumption as to the intention of his actions."