When is there an intentional crime and how do the courts achieve a legally sound examination of evidence of intent? This area of law is controversial, partly because of the difficulties in proving a person's intentions, and partly because the assessment includes positions on the limits of human responsibility. Two court cases and a legislative proposal have further highlighted the issue: the court cases have led to a partial reformulation of the doctrine of intent and the disappearance of the possibility for the court to find intent when the offender is voluntarily intoxicated. The bill concerns the reintroduction of a so-called sobriety requirement. Sweden is currently fairly alone in the Western world in having a legal system where children and the mentally ill can commit crimes. A reintroduction of insanity would change that. Against this background, the question arises whether these changes affect the courts' examination of evidence of intent and, if so, how? This is particularly true for crimes where intent is considered particularly difficult to prove, such as murder/attempted murder, rape and receiving stolen goods. A study of how the courts examine evidence of intent in such cases could answer these questions. Since the matter has received attention at the legislative level as well as in practice and legal doctrine, the subject is also highly topical. Moreover, no similar study has previously been carried out in Sweden.