§ 14.01   Voluntary Intoxication

 

Voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct; however, in limited circumstances, intoxication may negate the necessary state of mind for a given offense and thus prove exculpatory.  Intoxication resulting from alcoholism or drug addiction is considered voluntary under common law principles.

 

[A]  Mens rea Defense – While there are several approaches to evaluating the mens rea portion of criminal activity involving an intoxicated defendant, the most common approach distinguishes between general-intent and specific-intent crimes.  Under this common law approach, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to general-intent crimes.  Voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific intent crimes.

 

[B]  Special Rule for Homicide – Two states, Virginia and Pennsylvania, limit the defense of voluntary intoxication to first- degree murder prosecutions. In states that recognize the defense in all specific-intent crimes, if the crime of "murder" is divided into degrees, a defendant may generally introduce evidence that his intoxication prevented him from being able to form the requisite state of mind for first-degree murder.

 

[C]  Voluntary Act – Where a defendant’s intoxication was so severe as to render him unconscious at the time of the commission of the crime, some courts have barred a defense based on unconsciousness if such condition resulted from the voluntary consumption of alcohol or drugs. Others courts allow the defendant to argue that the criminal act was not a voluntary one due to his unconscious state, but only in defense to specific-intent offenses.

 

[D]  Intoxicated-Induced Insanity – The common law does not recognize a defense of temporary insanity based on intoxication where the defendant’s intoxication was voluntary.  Some jurisdictions do recognize a defense based on "fixed" insanity, a condition which results from long-term use of drugs or alcohol

 

§ 14.02   Involuntary Intoxication

 

[A]  Definition – Intoxication is "involuntary" if the defendant is not to blame for becoming intoxicated.  It may result from:

 

 

[B]  Availability of the Defense – Under common law, a defendant found to have been involuntarily intoxicated may avail himself of the defense of temporary insanity.  Furthermore, one who committed an offense while involuntarily intoxicated can otherwise seek acquittal by asserting the mens rea defense.

 

§ 14.03   Model Penal Code

 

[A]  General Rule – Model Penal Code § 2.08(4)–(5) distinguishes three types of intoxication:

 

 

[B]  Exculpation Based on Intoxication

 

[1]  Mens Rea Defense – Any form of intoxication is a defense to criminal conduct if it negates an element of the offense. [MPC § 2.08(1)]  Since the Code does not distinguish between "general intent" and "specific intent" offenses, the mens rea defense is broadly applied, with one exception.  In the case of crimes defined in terms of recklessness, a person acts "recklessly" as to an element of the crime if, as the result of the self-induced intoxication, he was not conscious of a risk of which he would have been aware had he not been intoxicated. [MPC § 2.08(2)]

 

[2]  Insanity – Pathological and involuntary intoxication are affirmatives defenses, if the intoxication causes the defendant to suffer from a mental condition comparable to that which constitutes insanity under the Code. [MPC § 2.08(4)]