However, where a person is intoxicated through drink or drugs and commits a crime, the level of intoxication may be such as to prevent that person from forming the necessary mens rea of the crime. However, involuntary intoxication is not a defence when the defendant despite or because of the intoxication formed the necessary mens rea at the time of committing the offence. Thus, where the drink or drug removed the inhibitions of the defendant so that he acted in a way which he would not have done if sober, he will still be guilty if he was able to, and did in fact, form the required mental element of the offence: R v Kingston [] 2 A.
Ignorance of the strength or effect of a drink or other intoxicating drugs that a defendant has voluntarily consumed, does not make the subsequent intoxication involuntary: R v Allen [] Crim.
Voluntary intoxication occurs as a result of the voluntary consumption of alcohol or drugs provided that, in the case of a drug, it is well known for being liable to cause unpredictability or aggressiveness.
LSD, amphetamine, etc. However, where the defendant has voluntarily put himself in the position of being intoxicated to the extent that he is incapable of forming the mental element of the offence, this will amount to a defence in respect of a crime of specific intent. This principle is subject to the caveat that a drunken intent is still an intent: R v Sheehan and Moore 60 Cr App R NB : A person who deliberately makes himself intoxicated in order to give himself sufficient courage to commit an offence cannot raise a defence based on such intoxication, even to a crime of specific intent: AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [] AC Crimes of specific intent have sometimes been stated to include crimes where the offence can only be committed intentionally i.
Another definition often used is where the offence requires an ulterior intent i. Drunken mistakes are generally no defence to crimes of basic intent: R v Fotheringham 88 Cr App R However, where a statute e.
It is considered a complete defense. If a person can prove that they were intoxicated through no fault or choice of their own when they committed a crime, then they may be acquitted of a crime. For example, if Mary goes to a party and eats a brownie without knowing that it contained marijuana, she would be involuntarily intoxicated.
If she leaves the party and decides to drive home, she could be charged with driving under the influence of drugs DUID. Her criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles County, CA could introduce evidence of involuntary intoxication to defend against these charges.
If you have been charged with a crime, the Chambers Law Firm is here for you. We will aggressively advocate for your rights and your freedom, and fight for the best possible outcome. To learn more or to schedule a free initial consultation, reach out today at or dchambers clfca. Voluntary intoxication is the willing ingestion or injection of any drink, drug, or other intoxicating substance that the defendant knows can produce an intoxicating effect.
The Supreme Court in Montana v. Egelhoff held that states are constitutionally permitted to eliminate the voluntary intoxication defense, and many states have done so. For example, Delaware does not permit the defendant to admit any evidence of voluntary intoxication.
Other states, such as California , allow defendants to raise voluntary intoxication only in cases of specific intent crimes as opposed to general intent crimes and only to prove whether the defendant acted with the necessary mens rea to establish criminal liability.
0コメント