§ 24.05 Voluntary Intoxication: Insanity

§ 24.05 Voluntary Intoxication: Insanity⁵⁸

[A] "Temporary" Insanity

Suppose that a person becomes so intoxicated that, at the time he commits an offense, he is so out of touch with reality that he does not appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or he cannot conform his conduct to the law. Assume further that if this state of mind were caused by a mental disease, rather than by intoxication, he could successfully raise the excuse defense of insanity.⁵⁹ As mental illness is not involved, however, the defendant may wish to claim that because of his voluntary ingestion of drugs or alcohol, he experienced something like "temporary insanity," or what Hale called "temporary phrenzy."⁶⁰

The common law does not recognize such a defense. To the extent that an actor's intoxication was voluntary, "any degree of insanity thus produced would be a part of the consequences of such voluntary intoxication."⁶¹ In contrast to mental illness, which is a condition that ordinarily is contracted involuntarily, one who voluntarily introduces alcohol or drugs into his system is the victim of "artificial voluntarily contracted madness."⁶² As such, he is not entitled to the law's dispensation.⁶³

[B] "Fixed" ("Settled") Insanity

Long-term use of intoxicants can result in a substance-induced mental disorder that persists, i.e., the disorder remains even when the actor is not under the influence of intoxicants.

The law distinguishes between mental impairment that does not extend beyond the period of voluntary intoxication ("temporary insanity"), for which no defense is available, and insanity resulting from long-term use of drugs or alcohol. If the unsoundness of mind, although produced by long-term alcohol or drug abuse, has become "fixed" or "settled," the general, but not universal, rule is that the defendant may assert a traditional insanity defense.⁶⁴ Although the defense is usually asserted when the defendant was not intoxicated at the time of the offense, the insanity defense applies even if the actor was intoxicated at the time of the crime.⁶⁵

In light of the unsympathetic view of common law jurists regarding intoxication-caused criminal conduct, it is surprising that "madness . . . contracted by the vice and will of the party"⁶⁶ would excuse. Indeed, one court that has rejected the defense has asserted:

There is no principled basis to distinguish between the short-term and long-term effects of voluntary intoxication by punishing the first and excusing the second. If

...