§ 24.01 INTOXICATION AND THE CRIMINAL LAW: AN OVERVIEW

• Jurisdiction: United States

§ 24.01. Intoxication and the Criminal Law: An Overview¹

[A] "Intoxication": Definition

The term "intoxication" may be defined as a "disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body."² As this definition suggests, the law pertaining to intoxication does not distinguish between alcohol and other foreign substances, including prescribed medications and illegal drugs.

[B] Intoxication Law in Its Social and Historical Context

Intoxicants distort judgment. They also reduce an actor's ability to control his aggressive feelings and anti-social impulses, resulting in criminal conduct, especially of a violent nature.³ Persons addicted to narcotics, as well, often commit crimes (even when not intoxicated) in order to support their illegal habit.

In light of the social damage caused by intoxicated actors, it is unsurprising that Anglo-American common law has provided wrongdoers very little opportunity to avoid conviction on the basis of intoxication, and the modern legislative trend is to reduce the scope of any intoxication defense still further.⁴ Indeed, in a few jurisdictions now, the law has taken on "a certain Alice-in-Wonderland quality,"⁵ by requiring prosecutors to prove the mens rea required in the definition of offenses, but then preventing defendants from introducing evidence of intoxication that might rebut its presence.

[C] Intoxication Cases: Issues to Consider

When a defendant is intoxicated at the time of the alleged criminal conduct, a lawyer must consider at least three questions. First, how did the defendant become intoxicated? Intoxication law is divisible into two general categories: rules pertaining to conduct that was the result of "voluntary" (or "self-induced") intoxication, and the law pertaining to "involuntary" (or "innocent") intoxication. The vast majority of cases concern the former condition.

Second, in what way does the defendant claim that his intoxication affected his culpability? In almost all cases, the actor claims that he did not form the statutorily required state of mind to be convicted of the offense. Occasionally, however, the defendant's intoxication is so severe that he may seek to show that he was unconscious when he acted, i.e., that his conduct did not include a voluntary act. Or, the defendant may assert that the intoxicants rendered him temporarily insane.

Third, of what type of offense is the defendant charged — general intent, specific intent, or strict...