Involuntary intoxication occurs when a person is induced to consume a substance such as drugs or alcohol, or when a person is forced to do so. For example, a woman who has put a date rape drug in her drink without her knowledge is unintentionally intoxicated. Unintentional intoxication can also occur as a result of an allergy or the unexpected effects of a legal prescription drug. Involuntary intoxication is a complete defense against all crimes if the intoxication has placed the accused in a state of mind that would qualify him as legally insane. In other words, if the accused was intoxicated against his will and the intoxication caused him either to fail to understand that his actions were wrong or to deprive him of his ability to abstain from committing his crime, he can use his involuntary intoxication to obtain an acquittal for the crime of which he is accused. See People v. Penman, 110 N.E. 894 (fig. 1915). For example: In other words, just being drunk or stoned isn`t enough to get you out of trouble, but it can be harder for prosecutors to prove your intent. For this reason, the voluntary intoxication defense is only considered a “partial defense” that can lead to acquittal or, in some cases, possibly reduced charges or sentences if the jury considers your intoxication. There are times when intoxication can be used as a legitimate defense when you are accused of certain crimes.
Although many crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol, and while this does not necessarily excuse someone from guilt, alcohol and drugs can still affect someone`s intent. Classic cases of involuntary intoxication occur when someone: Establishing a defense of voluntary intoxication is much more difficult than involuntary intoxication. By current legal standards, wilful intoxication is an applicable defense only for certain crimes, and even in these circumstances, jurors are far less likely to accept a intoxication defense if the defendant caused the intoxication on himself. Under English law, intoxication is a circumstance which may impair an accused`s ability to form a mens rea if an accusation is due to a particular intent, or may completely negate mens rea if the intoxication is involuntary. The fact that an accused is drunk while committing a crime – intentionally or not – has never been considered a complete defense to criminal prosecution (as opposed to legal defenses such as self-defense). Its development at common law has been marked by the acceptance that intoxicated persons do not think or act as rationally as they otherwise would, but also by the public need to punish those who commit crimes. Most jurisdictions do not allow a defence for involuntary intoxication if a defendant believed they were using an illegal drug (such as marijuana), but in fact another drug (such as cocaine).10 None of these possibilities have been explored at common law. Accordingly, it can only be said that the defence cannot argue that drunkenness is a defence if recklessness has been demonstrated in relation to the act, in crimes with fundamental intent. It is possible that, in some circumstances, the prosecution will dispense entirely with the original mens rea and rely solely on voluntary intoxication to provide the element of fault. [14] In some cases, voluntary drunkenness plea does not completely absolve the accused of responsibility, but rather reduces overall culpability for the crime. Thus, the accused could conclude that the charges are reduced to a lesser crime if he can prove that the drunkenness limited his intent or understanding of the crime. Under California criminal law, unintentional intoxication is a complete defense against a crime.
This means that a defendant cannot be convicted of committing a crime he committed while intoxicated.7 Many states, such as California, distinguish between intentional and involuntary intoxication and allow defense only in cases of unintentional intoxication. The Earl of Birkenhead stated in 1920 that until the early 19th century. In the nineteenth century, voluntary drunkenness was never a defence, based on the principle that “a man who defuses and destroys his will by his own voluntary act should be no better placed in criminal acts than a sober man.” [1] Lord Elwyn-Jones considered this to be an authority in the Majewski case. [2] Instead, intoxication may help the defense argue that the accused did not have the proper mens rea (mental element) for the crime. [3] If an accused is a specific intentional offence, i.e. the criminal accused must have had a specific intent to commit the offence in question, unintentional intoxication may be a defence to criminal charges if it prevents the accused from forming the necessary intent. For example, the accused may not understand the nature of his or her actions or may be considered incapable of attaining the state of mind necessary to commit the crime. A common example is the crime of aggression, which requires intent to cause harm. If a person becomes violent as a result of unintentional intoxication and commits an attack, he may be able to argue that the intoxication prevented him from forming the intention to harm. “Unintentional intoxication” occurs when a person unknowingly consumes an intoxicating substance or does so because of another person`s violence or trickery. The condition is a full defense in criminal cases, meaning that a defendant can get them to contest virtually any criminal charge. Unintentional intoxication occurs when the person has been deceived or forced to take the substances or ingested them without knowing it.
In other words, it is when someone unknowingly consumes an intoxicating substance or does so because of someone else`s violence or tricks. The classic example of unintentional intoxication occurs when someone drinks the contents from a bowl of punch without knowing that it has been infused with alcohol. Note that there are some limitations to the use of this defense. Please note that jurisdictions that allow intentional intoxication as a defense against certain intentional crimes make it a positive defense. Therefore, the onus is on the defendant to prove that he was so intoxicated that he did not intend to be convicted. In criminal law, the intoxication defence is a defence with which a defendant can assert reduced capacity for guilt due to substance poisoning. If a crime requires a certain mental state (mens rea) to break the law, it can be assumed that those under the influence of an intoxicant are less responsible for their actions. In terms of punishment, intoxication can be a mitigating factor that reduces a prison sentence or a prison sentence. Many factors influence the applicability of the defence. A distinction can be made according to whether the accused has opted for intoxication and is therefore responsible for his reduced control or not. In the Dutch Courage defence (see Gallagher in the English Intoxication Act), for example, the accused hates his wife, but is afraid to act.
The defendant therefore buys a bottle of brandy and a sharp knife. In the morning, the bottle is empty and the knife is in the spouse`s heart. Since the defendant had a plan and a weakening of inhibitions by drunkenness was part of that plan, a defense against intoxication is not feasible. [2] However, if at a party, a bowl of fruit punch is “skewed” by someone secretly adding gin, the resulting drunkenness is not intentional and could be considered a possible defense. A clearer distinction is made in Islamic law, where unintentional intoxication can eliminate criminal, if not financial, liability, while voluntary intoxication has no effect and the accused is treated as if sober. [3] Intoxication is considered unintentional if the defendant did not know that the substance he was using was intoxicating or if he or she used it under duress or coercion. In addition, the Model Penal Code also considers “pathological intoxication” to be involuntary. According to the Model Penal Code, intoxication is pathological if the accused consumes a small amount of an intoxicant but suffers a disproportionately serious reaction to which he did not know he was sensitive. For example, if a person consumes a small amount of alcohol and, due to an allergy that he does not know, suffers a severe reaction that makes him much more intoxicated than an ordinary person would be under the given circumstances, that person is in a state of pathological intoxication. Tom will not be able to claim unintentional poisoning, although he did not intend to take LSD. California courts have said that using a street drug carries an alleged risk of using a different drug than you thought.
However, Tom may be able to claim intentional poisoning because he did not specifically intend to break into someone`s home when he decided to smoke weed.