defense (some disallow it For acquittal, defendant must prove that because of intoxicated Generally allowed as a defense if it disproves mens completely) condition, she did not have specific intent required for rea commission of crime Exception: defense is not available if defendant Def: a disturbance of General Intent (because of self-induced intoxication) is unaware of mental or physical Defendant MAY NOT introduce evidence a risk that he would have perceived if he was sober capacities resulting from Held accountable regardless of intent Admissible as a defense unless crime was reckless the introduction of any (getting drunk itself is reckless behavior) substance into the body ACTUS REUS (introduction depends on unconscious/physical inability) – (MPC) Unconscious Movement ACTUS REUS Defendant MAY NOT introduce evidence of voluntary intoxication Generally a defense if it negates the reus Physical Inability Includes unconscious movements Defendant MAY introduce evidence Differs from CL (not distinction between specific/general, Ex. more broadly available with limitation on self-induced People v. Register – Defendant wants to introduce voluntary intoxication as intoxication). Includes unconscious movements. defense for depraved heart murder (extremely drunk, got into an argument in a bar, started firing gun and killed victim who was not part of altercation). Court rules that when mens rea of a crime is recklessness, the defendant may not introduce voluntary intoxication as defense. Voluntary intoxication itself is reckless behavior cannot use reckless behavior to negate mens rea of recklessness. Montana v. Egelhoff Defendant attempting to introduce evidence of voluntary intoxication as defense. Defendant charged with murder for shooting victims (execution style) in car after taking mushrooms. Question posed to court is whether evidence of voluntary intoxication should be considered for requiring that defendant acted purposefully/knowingly. Court rules that not all evidence is allowed to be introduced (may be excluded if it’s prejudicial/confusing to the jury). Doesn’t fully decide on issue of inclusion/exclusion, but mentions that the general trend is not to allow evidence, although some states do. Because in this case, the shooting required the defendant to reach into glove compartment to retrieve gun, there is evidence that he acted purposefully (regardless of intoxication)
defense (some disallow it completely) Def: a disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body (MPC) For acquittal, defendant must prove that because of intoxicated condition, she did not have specific intent required for commission of crime General Intent Defendant MAY NOT introduce evidence Held accountable regardless of intent ACTUS REUS – (introduction depends on unconscious/physical inability) Unconscious Movement Defendant MAY NOT introduce evidence of voluntary intoxication Physical Inability Defendant MAY introduce evidence Ex. People v. Register Defendant wants to introduce voluntary intoxication as defense for depraved heart murder (extremely drunk, got into an argument in a bar, started firing gun and killed victim who was not part of altercation). Court rules that when mens rea of a crime is recklessness, the defendant may not introduce voluntary intoxication as defense. Voluntary intoxication itself is reckless behavior cannot use reckless behavior to negate mens rea of recklessness. Montana v. Egelhoff Defendant attempting to introduce evidence of voluntary intoxication as defense. Defendant charged with murder for shooting victims (execution style) in car after taking mushrooms. Question posed to court is whether evidence of voluntary intoxication should be considered for requiring that defendant acted purposefully/knowingly. Court rules that not all evidence is allowed to be introduced (may be excluded if it’s prejudicial/confusing to the jury). Doesn’t fully decide on issue of inclusion/exclusion, but mentions that the general trend is not to allow evidence, although some states do. Because in this case, the shooting required the defendant to reach into glove compartment to retrieve gun, there is evidence that he acted purposefully (regardless of intoxication) Generally allowed as a defense if it disproves mens rea Exception: defense is not available if defendant (because of self-induced intoxication) is unaware of a risk that he would have perceived if he was sober Admissible as a defense unless crime was reckless (getting drunk itself is reckless behavior) ACTUS REUS Generally a defense if it negates the reus Includes unconscious movements Differs from CL (not distinction between specific/general, more broadly available – with limitation on self-induced intoxication). Includes unconscious movements.