the Fifth Circuit found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the defendant intended to cause bodily harm if his escape was met with any resistance, and that the evidence of such a “conditional” intent was sufficient to satisfy the intent element of the statute. Id. at 655. Similarly, in People v. Connors, 253 Ill. 266, 97 N.E. 643 (1912), the Illinois Supreme Court held that a defendant’s “intent to commit an offense which is coupled with an unlawful condition or demand,” is sufficient to satisfy a specific intent element of a statute. Id. 97 N.E. at 648. See also People v. Vandelinder, 192 Mich.App. 447, 481 N.W.2d 787 (1992); Commonwealth v. Richards, 363 Mass. 299, 293 N.E.2d 854 (1973). But see State v. Irwin, 55 N.C.App. 305, 285 S.E.2d 345, 349 (1982)(<HOLDING>); State v. Kinnemore, 34 Ohio App.2d 39, 295
holding that extrinsic offense evidence was admissible to prove intent where the prosecutor stated that she anticipated the defendant would deny his intent to be involved in the charged offense and defense counsel did not even mention that he would refrain from contesting the intent issue holding where the prosecution had to prove the defendant had the intent to gratify his sexual desires that the intent exception to rule 404b is dispositive holding that the only intent necessary to convict a defendant under 18 usc  1513b for retaliating against a witness victim or informant was an intent to retaliate internal quotation marks omitted holding that intent is a separate element and evidence relating to intent is irrelevant to determining whether an object is a criminal instrument holding that evidence that a defendant would have had an intent to mil only if a particular event occurred is not sufficient to convict defendant of assault with intent to mil