Difference between revisions of "Intoxication"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
−
Defendants who commit crimes under the influence of drugs or alcohol sometimes argue that their mental functioning was so impaired that they cannot be held responsible for their actions.  Generally, only involuntary intoxication is a defense. Because defendants should know that substances can impair mental functioning, voluntary intoxication is not a defense.  Thus, defendants should be held legally responsible if they commit crimes as a result of their voluntary use of substances.
+
== Background ==
  
−
* Voluntary intoxication (self-induced, without duress) is a defense in some jurisdictions if the defendant is accused of committing a crime that requires "specific" rather than "general" intent.  Specific intent crimes require proof that the defendant intended the consequences of the crime in addition to intending to do the physical act that leads to the consequences. Specific intent crimes are crimes like attempted murder (the defendant must have the intent to complete the murder) and conspiracy (the defendant must have the intent to complete the crime he conspired to commit).  If a defendant was voluntarily intoxicated when he committed a specific intent crime, he can argue he was too incapacitated to have formed the specific intent required.  This is only a partial defense and does not entirely excuse the defendant's actions.  In this situation, the defendant would usually be convicted of another crime that does not require proof of specific intent.  
+
Intoxication is a mental state in which a person’s normal capacity to act or reason is inhibited by alcohol or drugs.  Intoxication is not in and of itself a defense to a crime but it may be raised to negate the mens rea element of criminal activity and in that sense excuse criminal liability.
  
−
* Some jurisdictions treat involuntary intoxication like mental illness.  In those jurisdictions, if a defendant meets the applicable test for the insanity defense based on his involuntary intoxication, he can be acquitted.  Intoxication is involuntary only when a defendant takes an intoxicating substance without knowledge of its nature; or under direct duress imposed by another; or pursuant to medical advice while unaware of the substance's intoxicating effect.
+
== Country Specific Applications ==
  
−
See [[Defenses]]
+
=== Sri Lanka ===
 +
 
 +
Similar to the unsound mind defence, the Sri Lankan Penal code excuses a person from criminal liability for otherwise criminal actions, if by reason of intoxication, the person was “incapable of reason of knowing the nature of the act,” provided that the intoxication was involuntary.<ref>Penal Code § 78 (No. 2 of 1883), available at http://www.lawnet.lk/process.php?st=2001Y1V19C&hword=%27%27&path=5.</ref>  A person who is voluntarily intoxicated will still be criminally liable for his actions in a specific intent crime “if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated….”<ref>Penal Code § 79</ref>  This opens the door to a factual inquiry into an intoxicated person’s state of mind at the time of the criminal actions.  Consent cannot be given under any of the Penal Code sections by an intoxicated person if he is “unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent,” again opening a factual inquiry into the mental state of the intoxicated person.<ref>Penal Code § 83</ref>
 +
 
 +
=== United States ===
 +
 
 +
Some jurisdictions recognize a viable intoxication defense in the U.S.  There is a vital distinction however between voluntary and involuntary intoxication.
 +
 
 +
Voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct, but it can be used under limited circumstances to negate the mens rea element of criminal activity. There is a further distinction between general intent crimes, where the actor intends merely to perform an action but not necessarily the one that resulted, and specific intent crimes, which require proof that the actor intended to perform the specific criminal act charged.<ref>See http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/specific-and-general-intent-crimes.html</ref>  Voluntary intoxication, including that resulting from habitual drug or alcohol consumption, is normally not a defense to general intent crimes like assault or battery.  However, voluntary intoxication may be used as proof that the defendant did not mean to perform a specific criminal act, such as murder, and can serve as evidence to negate the mens rea element of specific intent crimes.<ref>http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim14.htm</ref>  The voluntary intoxication defense is often asserted in homicide cases to disprove pre-meditation, deliberation or intent to kill on behalf of the defendant.<ref>http://www.aapl.org/newsletter/N241_mens_rea_defenses.htm</ref> 
 +
 
 +
Involuntary intoxication is the result of coerced intoxication, mistake as to the nature of substance consumed, intoxication from prescribed medication or pathological intoxication, and at common law could excuse criminal liability of any resulting actions by the defendant.<ref>http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim14.htm</ref>  Some jurisdictions treat involuntary intoxication like temporary insanity, a [[Diminished Capacity]] defense.
 +
 
 +
The Model Penal Code § 2.08(4)-(5) distinguished three types of intoxication: (1) voluntary, (2) pathological and (3) involuntary.  Voluntary intoxication can serve as a defense to criminal conduct if it negates an element of a crime, usually the mens rea element.  The Model Penal Code does not distinguish between specific and general intent crimes so the mens rea defense is applied broadly.  However, in crimes with a “reckless” element, the defense is not available if as a result of the voluntary intoxication the defendant was not conscious of a risk that he would have been had he not been intoxicated.  Both pathological and involuntary intoxication may serve as affirmative defenses.<ref>http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim14.htm</ref> 
 +
 
 +
== Notes ==
 +
 
 +
<references/>

Revision as of 10:31, 29 October 2010

Background

Intoxication is a mental state in which a person’s normal capacity to act or reason is inhibited by alcohol or drugs. Intoxication is not in and of itself a defense to a crime but it may be raised to negate the mens rea element of criminal activity and in that sense excuse criminal liability.

Country Specific Applications

Sri Lanka

Similar to the unsound mind defence, the Sri Lankan Penal code excuses a person from criminal liability for otherwise criminal actions, if by reason of intoxication, the person was “incapable of reason of knowing the nature of the act,” provided that the intoxication was involuntary.[1] A person who is voluntarily intoxicated will still be criminally liable for his actions in a specific intent crime “if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated….”[2] This opens the door to a factual inquiry into an intoxicated person’s state of mind at the time of the criminal actions. Consent cannot be given under any of the Penal Code sections by an intoxicated person if he is “unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent,” again opening a factual inquiry into the mental state of the intoxicated person.[3]

United States

Some jurisdictions recognize a viable intoxication defense in the U.S. There is a vital distinction however between voluntary and involuntary intoxication.

Voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct, but it can be used under limited circumstances to negate the mens rea element of criminal activity. There is a further distinction between general intent crimes, where the actor intends merely to perform an action but not necessarily the one that resulted, and specific intent crimes, which require proof that the actor intended to perform the specific criminal act charged.[4] Voluntary intoxication, including that resulting from habitual drug or alcohol consumption, is normally not a defense to general intent crimes like assault or battery. However, voluntary intoxication may be used as proof that the defendant did not mean to perform a specific criminal act, such as murder, and can serve as evidence to negate the mens rea element of specific intent crimes.[5] The voluntary intoxication defense is often asserted in homicide cases to disprove pre-meditation, deliberation or intent to kill on behalf of the defendant.[6]

Involuntary intoxication is the result of coerced intoxication, mistake as to the nature of substance consumed, intoxication from prescribed medication or pathological intoxication, and at common law could excuse criminal liability of any resulting actions by the defendant.[7] Some jurisdictions treat involuntary intoxication like temporary insanity, a Diminished Capacity defense.

The Model Penal Code § 2.08(4)-(5) distinguished three types of intoxication: (1) voluntary, (2) pathological and (3) involuntary. Voluntary intoxication can serve as a defense to criminal conduct if it negates an element of a crime, usually the mens rea element. The Model Penal Code does not distinguish between specific and general intent crimes so the mens rea defense is applied broadly. However, in crimes with a “reckless” element, the defense is not available if as a result of the voluntary intoxication the defendant was not conscious of a risk that he would have been had he not been intoxicated. Both pathological and involuntary intoxication may serve as affirmative defenses.[8]

Notes

  1. ↑ Penal Code § 78 (No. 2 of 1883), available at http://www.lawnet.lk/process.php?st=2001Y1V19C&hword=%27%27&path=5.
  2. ↑ Penal Code § 79
  3. ↑ Penal Code § 83
  4. ↑ See http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/specific-and-general-intent-crimes.html
  5. ↑ http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim14.htm
  6. ↑ http://www.aapl.org/newsletter/N241_mens_rea_defenses.htm
  7. ↑ http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim14.htm
  8. ↑ http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim14.htm
Retrieved from "https://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php?title=Intoxication&oldid=6578"