
	Where results make sense

Topic: Involuntary intoxication

Related Topics

Excuse

Diminished responsibility

Intoxication

Insanity

Shoplifting

Drunkenness

Postage stamps and postal history of the United States

Theft

Kleptomania

	OSCN Found Document:Involuntary Intoxication Defined
		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.
		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.
		In this latter instance, the appropriate defense is insanity, not involuntary intoxication.
	www.oscn.net /applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeID=81441 (350 words)

	OSCN Found Document:Perryman v State
		Involuntary intoxication never exists where the person intoxicated knows what he is drinking, and drinks the intoxicant voluntarily, and without being made to do so by force or coercion.
		Involuntary intoxication is no defense or excuse for the commission of crime, but in a prosecution for murder may be considered by the jury, only for the purpose of determining whether or not the accused, at the time of the homicide, was capable of forming and entertaining a premeditated design to effect death.
		In fact, involuntary intoxication is a very rare thing, and can never exist where the person intoxicated knows what he is drinking, and drinks the intoxicant voluntarily, and without being made to do so by force or coercion.
	www.oscn.net /applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?citeID=22089 (1271 words)

	No. 03SC675. People v. Garcia, Jr. - June 13, 2005 - Colorado Supreme Court Opinions
		On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that impairment as a result of intoxication is "not necessarily a mental defect or disease,"as defined by the defense of insanity, Garcia, 87 P.3d at 162, and held that the trial court erred by not permitting Garcia to proceed under his claimed affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication.
		Turner claimed that his resulting intoxication was involuntary because he had not been warned of the intoxicating side effect of an overdose of the drug and because his past experiences with the drug had led him to believe that an overdose would cause him to become fatigued, not intoxicated.
		The Affirmative Defense of Involuntary Intoxication is Not
	www.cobar.org /opinions/opinion.cfm?OpinionID=5170 (5215 words)

	Intoxication defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		An intoxication defense, in criminal law, is a defense by excuse, via which a defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were intoxicated.
		However, voluntary intoxication is never a defense to general intent crimes, such as arson, rape, or murder, that require a mens rea of malice or recklessness rather than the specific intent to commit the offense.
		An example of involuntary intoxication can be found in the Alfred Hitchcock film North by Northwest, in which Cary Grant's character is forced to drink gin.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Intoxication_defense (262 words)

	njsette
		Involuntary intoxication is either not self-induced or is pathological and is a complete defense where the level of intoxication prevents the defendant from an awareness of the nature and quality of his acts or knowing that those acts are wrong.
		As to the affirmative defense of pathological intoxication, which would excuse defendant from criminal conduct, the judge advised the jury of defendant's burden to establish by clear and convincing proof that the intoxication was involuntary and pathological and that it prevented his awareness of the nature and quality of his acts.
		Involuntary intoxication carries the same burden of proof as pathological intoxication and reflects the same philosophy: a defendant is relieved of criminal responsibility when his intoxication was not his fault.
	wings.buffalo.edu /law/bclc/web/njsette.htm (7439 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)

	No. 98-2655
		The involuntary intoxication standard, rather than being congruent with the lack of specific intent standard for voluntary intoxication, is coextensive with the mental responsibility test set forth in §971.15(1).
		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.
		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.wisbar.org /res/capp/z1998/98-2655.htm (3925 words)

	Involuntary
		Involuntary celibacy Involuntary celibacy (or incel) is the lack of sexual abstinence.
		Involuntary commitment Involuntary commitment is the practice of using legal means or forms to commit a person to a USA....
		Involuntary intoxication In statutes have formally stated that voluntary intoxication cannot be used as a defense.
	www.brainyencyclopedia.com /topics/involuntary.html (96 words)

	r. v. penno, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 865 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07)
		intoxication is logical and necessary to suppress all the effects of intoxication on the road.
		intoxication in the cases where such a defence would have failed anyway in raising a reasonable doubt as to an element of the offence is of no real and practical importance to an accused.
		The problem at common law with denying the defence of intoxication for all crimes of general intent is that it deprives an accused of the opportunity to raise a reasonable doubt as to the presence of the mental element of the offence.
	www.lexum.umontreal.ca /csc-scc/en/pub/1990/vol2/html/1990scr2_0865.html (11488 words)

	City of Minneapolis v. Altimus
		Defendant argues that the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury on the defense of involuntary intoxication.
		The defendant due to this intoxication is temporarily insane.
		Rationale: A jury has to decide whether these 3 elements are met and the defendant in the current case should have had the instruction of involuntary intoxication.
	www.4lawschool.com /criminal/city.shtml (203 words)

	Michigan Appellate Digest - 129176 People v Caulley (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07)
		Voluntary intoxication is caused by substances which the defendant knows, or ought to know, have the tendency to cause intoxication and which he knowingly introduced, or allowed to be introduced, into his body.
		Involuntary intoxication occurs when the defendant does not knowingly ingest an intoxicating substance, or ingests a substance not known to be an intoxicant.
		Involuntary intoxication can constitute a complete defense if the defendant was unexpectedly intoxicated due to the ingestion of a medically prescribed drug.
	courtofappeals.mijud.net /Digest/newHTML/12917621.htm (839 words)

	Ala. Code § 13A-3-2 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07)
		However, intoxication, whether voluntary or involuntary, is admissible in evidence whenever it is relevant to negate an element of the offense charged.
		(c) Involuntary intoxication is a defense to prosecution if as a result the actor lacks capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
		(2) "Voluntary intoxication" means intoxication caused by substances that the actor knowingly introduced into his body, the tendency of which to cause intoxication he knows he ought to know, unless he introduces them under circumstances that would afford a defense to a charge of crime.
	www.law.ua.edu /colquitt/crimmain/crimstat/13a-3-2.htm (189 words)

	[No title] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07)
		Under the Model Penal Code, intoxication is a n 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\rquote s advice should not be deemed voluntary just because the patient is aware of potential adverse side effects.
		The evide nce must be credible and sufficient to warrant the jury\rquote 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 /ca/opinions/98/98-2655.doc (3800 words)

	The Mickey Finn defense: involuntary intoxication and insanity. R. L. Goldstein (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07)
		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. 01CA2514. People v. Garcia, Jr. - August 14, 2003 - Colorado Court of Appeals Opinions
		Where intoxication is self-induced, the incapacity is avoidable, and based on the moral blame associated with awareness that an ingested substance will likely alter one’s faculties, that person is barred from avoiding the mens rea element of a crime.
		The affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication insulates a person from criminal responsibility where the involuntary intoxication eliminates his capacity to conform his conduct to the law.
		Whether intoxication caused by an overdose of a prescription medicine is considered voluntary or involuntary depends upon whether the individual should have known that intoxication would ensue, which also is a question for the jury.
	www.cobar.org /opinions/opinion.cfm?OpinionID=3810 (1631 words)

	T.P.I. -- CRIM. 40.02 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07)
		[However, involuntary intoxication is a defense to prosecution if as a result of the involuntary intoxication the person lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of the person's conduct or to conform that conduct to the requirements of the law allegedly violated.]
		Intoxication, whether voluntary or involuntary, is relevant to the issue of the essential element of the defendant's culpable mental state.
		If you find that the defendant was intoxicated to the extent that [he] [she] could not have possessed the required culpable mental state, then [he] [she] cannot be guilty of the offense charged.
	www.tncrimlaw.com /TPI_Crim/40_02.htm (377 words)

	Colorado Criminal Affirmative Defenses - Colorado Springs Gustafson Law Office
		Voluntary or self-induced Intoxication is an affirmative defense to certain crimes or their lesser included offenses - that, at the time of the alleged offense(s), because of intoxication, the defendant did not have the capacity to form the specific intent required by that offense.
		Voluntary or self-induced Intoxication is an affirmative defense to certain crimes or their lesser included offenses - that, at the time of the alleged offense(s), lacked the capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law because of intoxication that was not self-induced.
		Intoxication of the accused is not a defense to a criminal charge, except that a person is not criminally responsible for his conduct if intoxication was not self-induced and was intoxicated to a degree that was unable to formulate the requisite specific intent or to act knowingly or recklessly with respect to the circumstance.
	www.gustafsonlaw.com /Criminal-Affirm_Def.htm (4328 words)

	The Law Reform Commission Consultation Paper on Intoxication as a defence to a Criminal Offence
		Nevertheless, it is appropriate to consider intoxication by alcohol and other drugs as being equal for the purposes of the intoxication defence, as the relevant consideration is whether the accused had the requisite mental element for the offence charged or acted voluntarily.
		Where one is partially intoxicated and has some knowledge of one's actions, but nevertheless offends, one may be viewed as being in the same situation as an impulsive offender who realises what he or she is doing, but loses his or her inhibitions.
		In the former context, the accused's intoxication may be considered as either a mitigating or an aggravating factor, depending on all the circumstances of the case, at the trial judge's discretion.
	www.lawreform.ie /publications/data/lrc83/lrc_83.html (8159 words)

	COURTTV.COM- TRIALS
		However, on appeal, Brancaccio's conviction was overturned and he was granted a new trial on the grounds that the court gave a flawed jury instruction on involuntary intoxication.
		"Involuntary intoxication relieves the criminality of an act committed under its influence.
		The test of involuntary intoxication is whether there was an absence of an exercise of an independent judgment and volition on the part of the accused in taking the intoxicant."
	www.courttv.com /trials/taped/brancaccio/verdict.html (259 words)

	United States v. Knott
		Prior to the kidnappings that are the subject of this case, the pair kidnapped an elderly couple in Nevada, stole the proceeds of their travelers checks, and left them bound and gagged in a motel.
		We hold that under the Insanity Defense Reform Act, the defendant's voluntary drug use or intoxication at the time of the crime may not be considered in combination with his mental disease or defect in determining whether the defendant was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts.
		Substance abuse or voluntary intoxication is one factor in throwing light upon the mental condition of the accused at the time of the alleged offense.
	www.law.ua.edu /colquitt/crimmain/crimcase/knott.htm (1955 words)

	01-6131 -- Jackson v. Mullin -- 09/16/2002
		Jackson admitted to police officers that if Cade was dead, he did it, but he did not intend to kill her, did not want to talk about the details of the killing, and did not remember much about what happened in the motel room.
		Involuntary intoxication is a complete defense if the defendant is so intoxicated he cannot distinguish between right and wrong.
		Given the context of this case, the trial court's failure to instruct on intoxication did not rise to the level of error rendering the trial fundamentally unfair.
	www.kscourts.org /ca10/cases/2002/09/01-6131.htm (3152 words)

	[1995] 4 Web JCLI
		By recognising a defence of involuntary intoxication despite the presence of mens rea, the court would have to address the question whether the defendant would have committed the act but for the surreptitious administration to him of drink or drugs.
		With the burden of proving the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt on the prosecution, including that the offence would have been committed notwithstanding the involuntary intoxication, the benefit of the doubt would be given to the defence.
		Henceforth, involuntary intoxication is to be considered as a mitigating factor in sentencing.
	webjcli.ncl.ac.uk /articles4/boland4.html (1112 words)

	law.com - Article
		The dissenting justices agreed that insulin-induced hypoglycemia could result in involuntary intoxication but said Garcia's low blood sugar was a result of his own actions.
		He must also show the intoxication disturbed his mental or physical capabilities and "resulted in the defendant's lack of capacity to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of law," they said.
		They said Garcia's statements indicated any intoxication was voluntary because he ignored medical advice and took too large a dose of insulin and then failed to eat anything afterward, despite at least three other bouts of hypoglycemia.
	www.law.com /jsp/article.jsp?id=1118666121681 (542 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)