How have courts interpreted the phrase "state of mind" in the definition of a criminal offence?

Finally, appellant argues that the challenged phrase "does not articulate what the accuseds state of mind must be with respect to the furtherance of gang activity." However, he concedes that "[e]ven though it is not explicitly mentioned, the specific intent to further gang activity is implicit." Appellant is correct. "When the definition of a crime consists of only the description of a particular act, without reference to intent to do a further act or achieve a future consequence, we ask whether the defendant intended to do the proscribed act. This intention is deemed to be a general criminal intent. When the definition refers to defendants intent to do some further act or achieve some additional consequence, the crime is deemed to be one of specific intent." ( People v. Hood (1969) 1 Cal.3d 444, 456457, 82 Cal.Rptr. 618, 462 P.2d 370.)