Well, this will probabily come off as dodging the question but i suppose that would depend on the subjective mind of the person percieving said innocence.

If i understand the question correctly,

Can there be innocence without intent?

A catholic might say no, citing original sin as proof that even without any intentions all humans are gulity starting at the moment the egg is fertilized.

A lawyer might say no and pose the argument that a being without intent implys a lack of guilt, and without that guilt (or, ehm, lack thereof) there can be no innocence.

On the flipside,

An animal lover might say yes. Animals don't need explicit intent to be innocent. Their primal instincts encompass their ability to intend to do something or other and because of that, they are unable to be held responsible for their actions, making them wholly innocent no matter what behaviors they might exhibit.

Shit even a catholic animal lover might say yes, being that animals don't have original sin.

What do i say?

FUCK IF I KNOW!