Joe was a guiding, effective light during a difficult and awkward time. His experience, expertise and agility achieved our desired result. We would recommend Joe Simon again and again.
I am more than grateful for Mr. Simon’s prompt, personal, and expert work on my behalf. He kept me updated constantly until my issue was resolved. Thank you, Mr. Simon!
Absolutely. The rudest receptionist I’ve ever talked to all I had was a couple of questions and she was very rude and would not help me be warned.
Joe has helped me twice now & has done amazing work. He’s extremely kind & does his very best to help you. Highly recommend.
Assault with Intent to Commit Great Bodily Harm is one of Michigan’s most serious criminal charges. It sits in a unique position within assault law—more severe than simple assault or aggravated assault, yet distinct from charges like Assault with Intent to Murder or Felonious Assault. The critical distinction lies in one word: intent.
Under Michigan law, Assault with Intent to Commit Great Bodily Harm (MCL 750.84) carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. The charge requires the prosecution to prove not only that you committed an assault, but that you did so with a specific mental state—an intention to cause great bodily harm. This mental element is both the charge’s greatest strength for prosecutors and your most powerful avenue for defense.
Many people mistakenly believe that proving physical harm occurred automatically proves intent to cause great bodily harm. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how criminal law works, and it’s precisely where your defense strategy should begin.
Intent is a subjective state of mind. It’s what was happening inside your head at the moment of the alleged offense. Two people can commit identical physical actions—the same punch, the same push, the same altercation—yet one could be convicted of Assault with Intent to Commit Great Bodily Harm while the other walks free. The difference isn’t the action itself; it’s what the person intended.
Here’s the critical point: The prosecution must prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. They cannot simply assume your intent based on the outcome. They must prove it through evidence, witnesses, circumstances, and context. If they cannot cross that threshold, the charge fails—regardless of whether injuries occurred.
Before we discuss intent, it’s important to understand what prosecutors must prove you intended. “Great bodily harm” in Michigan law means serious injury—fractures, severe lacerations, substantial swelling, concussions, or injuries requiring hospitalization. It’s more serious than simple harm or minor injury, but it’s also distinct from permanent disfigurement or life-threatening injury (which would push charges toward Assault with Intent to Murder or Felonious Assault).
Understanding this distinction helps frame your defense. If injuries claimed don’t rise to the level of “great bodily harm,” that’s one defensive avenue. If injuries did occur but your actions didn’t demonstrate intent to cause them, that’s another. Often, both arguments apply.
Prosecutors typically build an intent case by working backward from the injury. Their logic: significant injuries occurred, therefore you must have intended to cause them. But this reasoning contains a fundamental flaw—it conflates recklessness with intent.
Consider a realistic scenario: A heated argument escalates. You push someone. They fall unexpectedly, strike their head, and suffer a concussion. Prosecutors point to the serious injury and claim you intended great bodily harm. But did you? You might have intended only to create distance, to assert dominance in an argument, or to prevent the other person from escalating—not to cause a head injury from a fall you didn’t anticipate.
This is precisely where the prosecution’s case weakens under scrutiny. Proving what you actually intended requires evidence that goes beyond the injuries themselves.
Your defense begins with a clear narrative about what you actually intended. Were you defending yourself or another person? Were you attempting to de-escalate or restrain? Were you reacting to an immediate threat? Were your actions defensive rather than aggressive?
Your attorney should work with you to construct a detailed account that explains your mental state and the circumstances surrounding your actions. This narrative becomes the foundation upon which reasonable doubt is built.
Physical evidence often contradicts the prosecution’s intent theory. For example:
These physical details matter enormously. A skilled defense attorney will have medical records independently reviewed and will present evidence showing that the injury pattern doesn’t match an intentional attempt to cause great bodily harm.
Witnesses to altercations rarely have the complete picture. They may have arrived after the conflict began. They may have personal relationships or biases. They may have misunderstood the context or your actions.
Defense cross-examination can expose inconsistencies in witness testimony, reveal bias, and create reasonable doubt about whether observers truly understood your intent. What seemed aggressive to a bystander might have been defensive to you. What appeared intentional might have been reflexive.
Great bodily harm often results from factors beyond anyone’s control—a person’s frail health, unexpected fall trajectories, the angle of impact, or pure chance. Your defense should present evidence showing that serious injuries can result from minor force applied without intent to cause those injuries.
Medical and biomechanical experts can testify about how injuries of this severity could result from force levels inconsistent with an intent to cause great bodily harm.
Intent defense strategy isn’t something that develops well at trial. It requires investigation from the moment charges are filed. Your attorney needs to preserve evidence, interview witnesses while memories are fresh, photograph scenes, and gather documentation before details fade or disappear.
Early representation also protects you during police questioning. Statements you make—or refrain from making—can significantly impact whether prosecutors believe they can prove intent. A skilled defense attorney ensures that your interactions with law enforcement don’t inadvertently strengthen their case.
The difference between conviction and acquittal on Assault with Intent to Commit Great Bodily Harm often comes down to one thing: whether the jury believes the prosecution proved your intent beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s not about denying an altercation occurred or injuries resulted. It’s about clearly establishing what was actually happening in your mind and demonstrating that the prosecution’s intent theory doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
This is fundamentally different from other defenses. You’re not claiming innocence of all involvement; you’re claiming a different mental state. And that distinction—properly presented by an experienced criminal defense attorney—can be the difference between a decade-long sentence and walking free.
If you’re facing charges of Assault with Intent to Commit Great Bodily Harm, the time to discuss your intent defense is now. Contact Law Offices of Joseph A. Simon, PLLC for a confidential consultation.