
	Where results make sense

Topic: Intoxication defense

In the News (Sat 26 Dec 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	Insanity defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		In a criminal trial, the insanity defenses are possible defenses by excuse, via which defendants may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were mentally ill or mentally incompetent at the time of their allegedly "criminal" actions.
		The insanity defense is available in most jurisdictions that respect human rights and have a rule of law, though the extent to which it can be applied may differ widely between jurisdictions.
		The use of the insanity defense in cases of psychopathy is rare and almost uniformly unsuccessful.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Insanity_defense (1547 words)

	EROSION OF THE RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		Despite defense counsel's response that "she had no intention of relitigating the issue of voluntariness," but rather sought only to attack the credibility of the confession, the trial court agreed with the prosecution and granted its motion to prevent the introduction of such evidence.
		Although the trial court permitted Egelhoff to use the voluntary intoxication evidence, the court instructed the jury that it was not to consider the evidence in determining the existence of the requisite mental state.
		Moreover, however, it is the truth-seeking structure of the amendment that causes abrogation of the voluntary intoxication defense to have the effect of impeding the ability of criminal defendants to establish defenses.
	www.law.msu.edu /lawrev/98-4/fitzpatrick.htm (7870 words)

	State v. Hammond, 118 N.J. 306 (1990)
		West, supra, involuntary intoxication is not a defense to the motor vehicle violation of drunk driving.
		[I]ntoxication is not a defense unless it establishes a reasonable doubt as to the existence of an element of the offense.
		The application of the involuntary intoxication defense would be anomalous: the more drunk the driver is, the less culpable he or she would be.
	wings.buffalo.edu /law/bclc/web/njhammon.html (3509 words)

	OCCA: OUJI-CR 8-36 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		Voluntary intoxication is relevant to disprove the existence of a specific criminal intent and thereby the commission of the crime, but voluntary intoxication does not excuse the defendant from criminal liability for a lesser included offense which does not have such a mens rea requirement.
		Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to the crime of rape, because rape does not have a specific criminal intent mens rea requirement.
		Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a crime having a general mens rea requirement, such as criminal negligence.
	www.occa.state.ok.us /online/oujis/oujisrvr.jsp?o=487 (867 words)

	STATE OF MICHIGAN
		At the conference on jury instructions, defense counsel stated that he did not intend to use intoxication as a defense, despite defendant's testimony that he was intoxicated on drugs when he killed Porter.
		Defense counsel was cognizant that he could argue intoxication, but opted instead to argue that the shooting was accidental, in that it was unplanned and undeliberated.
		Here, defense counsel carefully chose defendant's defense, and defendant expressly agreed to argue to the jury that he had not premeditated and deliberated the killing, and that he shot Porter because he mistakenly believed Porter was going to shoot him.
	www.michbar.org /opinions/appeals/2000/042100/6830.html (716 words)

	Revised 6/12/89 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		Intoxication means a disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances into the body.
		intoxication grossly excessive in degree, given the amount of the intoxicant, to which the actor does not know he is susceptible.
		Keep in mind, however, that although the burden rests upon the defendant to establish the defense of intoxication by clear and convincing evidence, the burden of proving the defendant guilty of the offense charged here, beyond a reasonable doubt, is always on the State, and that burden never shifts.
	www.judiciary.state.nj.us /charges/jury/liabil006.htm (341 words)

	CRIMINAL FILE 3
		Thus, the defenses that counsel raised were not prepared-for, and were preempted and impossible even from the very onset of the defense effort, causing grave prejudice to Sholes.
		Additionally, counsel in his notice of defense, deliberately worded and mischaracterized Sholes' defense as a sort of "temporary insanity" and in such a way as to increase the likelihood of state-appointed forensic experts or psychiatric evaluators ruling out or finding unlikely any defense of progressive mental collapse or intoxication causing diminished capacity.
		Counsel thus rejected the only viable defense, which was extreme intoxication leading to diminished capacity and lack of ability to intend and knowingly cause the results of his actions.
	deathbylethalsubjection.com /criminal_file_3.htm (2076 words)

	98-2655 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		Under the Model Penal Code, intoxication is an affirmative defense when it is not self-induced and renders the actor incapable of appreciating the criminality of his or her conduct, or unable to conform his or her conduct to the law.
		Intoxication resulting from such compliance with a physician's advice should not be deemed voluntary just because the patient is aware of potential adverse side effects.
		The evidence must be credible and sufficient to warrant the jury's consideration of the issue as to whether the defendant was intoxicated to the extent it materially affected his or her ability to form the requisite intent.
	www.courts.state.wi.us /html/ca/98/98-2655.htm (3967 words)

	njstasio
		Fourth, the defense of insanity is available when the voluntary use of the intoxicant or drug results in a fixed state of insanity after the influence of the intoxicant or drug has spent itself.
		Evidence of intoxication, which may under some circumstances be inferred from prolonged, continuous, heavy drinking, should ordinarily entitle a defendant to a charge of intoxication as a factual defense bearing upon his mental state and whether he acted without purpose or volition.
		Intoxication would not be a defense, however, to criminal offenses which may be established by recklessness or negligence as the carelessness in getting intoxicated would of itself supply the necessary mental state.
	wings.buffalo.edu /law/bclc/web/njstasio.htm (6880 words)

	OSCN Found Document:Involuntary Intoxication Defined (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		Involuntary intoxication is a complete defense where the defendant is so intoxicated that he is unable to distinguish between right and wrong, the same standard as applied in an insanity defense.
		An involuntary intoxication defense is available where the intoxication results from: 1) fraud, trickery or duress of another; 2) accident or mistake on his own part; 3) a pathological condition; 4) ignorance as to the effects of prescribed medication.
		Involuntary intoxication is solely a claim that the person, without personal culpability for the intoxication, was so intoxicated at the particular time as to be unable to know right from wrong, or the nature and consequences of his acts.
	www.oscn.net /applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeID=81441 (350 words)

	No. 02-1219
		The defendant must come forward with evidence that he or she was intoxicated to an extent that materially affected his or her ability to form the requisite intent for the crime charged, or that negated the existence of some other required mental state.
		Because Russell was therefore denied effective assistance of counsel when her attorney failed to object that the voluntary intoxication instruction did not refer to the intent element of battery, we reverse the portion of the judgment convicting her of battery by a prisoner.
		As already discussed, the voluntary intoxication instruction as given did not inform the jury that it was required to consider whether Russell was so intoxicated that she did not have the intent required to commit a battery.
	www.wisbar.org /res/capp/2003/02-1219.htm (2323 words)

	Hawaii Supreme Court Case No. 14547 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		Evidence of self-induced intoxication of the defendant is admissible to prove or negative conduct or to prove state of mind sufficient to establish an element of the offense.
		Evidence of self-induced intoxication of the defendant is admissible to prove or negative conduct or to prove state of mind sufficient to establish an element of an offense.
		Evidence of self- induced intoxication of the defendant is not admissible to negative the state of mind sufficient to establish an element of the offense.
	www.hsba.org /hsba/Legal_Research/Hawaii/sc/14547.cfm (997 words)

	Standridge v. State (Arnold, C.J.) CR96-1468
		Appellant also challenges a jury instruction submitted that reads: "Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to any criminal offense in Arkansas." Appellant contends that this jury instruction violates his right to due process and that by offering this instruction, the trial court improperly commented on theevidence in the case.
		First, appellant attempts to distinguish the fact that while voluntary intoxication is not a defense, it should be considered as a factor in the mental state of a defendant when a defendant is charged with a specific intent crime.
		We declared that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to any criminal prosecution and determined that the distinction between specific intent crimes and other crimes was of "no consequence because th[e] defense is no longer available" 290 Ark.
	courts.state.ar.us /opinions/1997b/970911/cr961468.html (3266 words)

	[No title]
		We find that the defense of pathological insanity, which appellant urges this Court to accept, is merely a form of temporary insanity triggered by voluntary intoxication and that it is, therefore, prohibited under Virginia law.
		Because the pathological intoxication defense is not a viable defense under Virginia law, appellant was not "prejudiced by the lack of expert assistance" in preparing and presenting such a defense.
		It follows that, in the absence of a valid insanity defense, the appellant's motion for the appointment of a neurologist to assist him in the defense was properly denied.
	www.courts.state.va.us /txtops/2215964.txt (1240 words)

	Drug intoxication defense breaks new South Carolina legal ground: Pittman /Zoloft trial
		Defense attorneys for Christopher Pittman, who was 12 years old when he committed the double murder of his grandparents, have argued that when he committed the crime he was under the influence of "involuntary intoxication" induced by the antidepressant, Zoloft.
		The defense acknowledges Pittman, now 15, shot Joe Pittman, 66, and his wife Joy, 62, in their Chester County home but didn't know right from wrong at the time because his mind was clouded by the anti-depressant.
		The defense has presented witnesses that Pittman was manic at the time of the slayings because of the Zoloft "The only evidence in this case of any mental defect is one that was drug-induced and which when away when the drug went away," Vickery said.
	www.ahrp.org /infomail/05/02/13a.php (1114 words)

	39 Wn. App. 104, STATE v. FULLER
		Although the jury was not instructed that the defendant had the burden of proving intoxication by a preponderance of the evidence, neither was it instructed that the State has the burden of proving the nonexistence of the intoxication defense.
		Fuller argues that because the defense of voluntary intoxication negates the element of knowledge required to sustain a conviction for second degree assault, the State bears the burden of proving the absence of that defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
		572, 643 P.2d 916 (1982), in which this court held that, because the intoxication defense negates the element of intent required for third degree assault, it was a violation of due process to instruct the jury that the defendant must prove the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
	www.mrsc.org /mc/courts/appellate/039wnapp/039wnapp0104.htm (1237 words)

	30 Wn. App. 432, STATE v. SIMMONS
		A criminal defendant is entitled to an intoxication defense instruction if a particular mental state is an element of the offense charged and substantial evidence is presented of the defendant's drinking and the effect of his drinking on the requisite mental state.
		RCW 9.01.114 was recognized as a defense where "specific intent" was an element of the crime charged, but not where "general intent" was sufficient to sustain a conviction.
		The result is that the new code section, as drafted, greatly expands the intoxication defense because nearly all crimes require, as an element, one of the four mental states described in RCW 9A.08.010.
	www.mrsc.org /mc/courts/appellate/030wnapp/030wnapp0432.htm (1113 words)

	Intoxication Defense in Workers' Compensation is Not Automatic (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		If the employee's intoxication results from activities which were in pursuit of the employer's interests or in which the employer encouraged its use, the intoxication defense does not apply.
		In successfully establishing the intoxication defense, the employer must first prove that the employee was intoxicated at the time of the accident.
		In order to beat the employer's intoxication defense, the employee must prove that the intoxication was not a contributing cause of the accident.
	www.lwcc.com /articles_legal.cfm?A=97&C=2 (1164 words)

	STATE OF MICHIGAN
		Initially, we note that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury regarding the defense of voluntary intoxication was harmless error with regard to the crime of larceny from a person, and was simply not error with regard to the crime of forcible confinement kidnapping.
		Defendant argues that he was entitled to an instruction on the voluntary intoxication defense because he was charged with larceny from a person, which is a specific intent crime.
		An instruction regarding the defense of intoxication is proper only if the facts of the case would allow the jury to conclude that the defendant's intoxication was "so great" as to render him incapable of forming the requisite intent.
	www.michbar.org /opinions/appeals/2000/091500/8132.html (3088 words)

	Converted file trb (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		This section provides: “Intoxication is not a defense in a prosecution for an offense and may not be taken into consideration in determining the existence of a mental state that is an element of the offense.
		Providing that a voluntarily intoxicated person is responsible for his or her actions to the same degree as a sober person does not criminalize activity that is wholly innocent because of ignorance of an obscure law or lack of knowledge of relevant facts.
		Assuming intoxication has both rendered a person incapable of apprehending the consequences or wrongfulness of his acts and still left him capable of performing them, we think the legislature may constitutionally provide that the perpetrator whose ignorance is the product of self-induced intoxication rather than moral blindness is equally culpable.
	www.state.in.us /judiciary/opinions/archive/06260101.trb.html (8518 words)

	The Mickey Finn defense: involuntary intoxication and insanity. R. L. Goldstein (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		The legal context of voluntary and involuntary intoxication is delineated.
		The author reports a case of involuntary intoxication involving scopolamine toxic psychosis or delirium, in which he testified as a psychiatric expert witness.
		The forensic psychiatrist should be alert to the involuntary intoxication defense in these cases and should familiarize himself with the specific toxicity of scopolamine, in view of the significant increase in the number of incidents in which it is utilized as "knockout" drops in certain jurisdictions.
	www.emory.edu /AAPL/Bull/J201-027.htm (107 words)

	No. 4-03-0130, People v. Hari
		He stated involuntary Zoloft intoxication means a "toxic reaction" and a person suffering from it would not stagger, have slurred speech or demonstrate an inability to walk a straight line.
		As noted earlier, a person in an intoxicated condition is criminally responsible for his conduct, "unless such condition is involuntarily produced and deprives him of substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law." 720 ILCS 5/6-3 (West 2002).
		Defense counsel cross-examined Parker on his conversations with defendant about the shootings, his statement to the police, and his understanding that defendant shot Jeff first in the head and then shot his wife after that.
	www.state.il.us /court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2005/4thDistrict/January/Html/4030130.htm (6030 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)