§ 24.07 Model Penal Code

§ 24.07 Model Penal Code

[A] General Rule

An actor's intoxicated condition at the time of a crime may exculpate him in two circumstances. First, with one exception discussed below, any form of intoxication is a defense to criminal conduct if it negates an element of the offense.⁸⁴ Second, pathological intoxication and intoxication that was not self-induced⁸⁵ are affirmatives defenses, if the intoxication causes the actor to suffer from a mental condition comparable to that which constitutes insanity under the Code.⁸⁶ These exculpatory claims are explained below.

[B] Negation of an Element of an Offense

[1] Mental State

[a] In General

The Code does not distinguish between "general intent" and "specific intent" offenses.⁸⁷ Consequently, with one exception, a person is not guilty of an offense—regardless of whether it would be characterized as "general intent" or "specific intent" at common law—if, as the result of intoxication (self-induced or not), he lacked the state of mind required in respect to an element of the crime.

For example, assume that under state law "rape" occurs when a male "knowingly has nonconsensual sexual intercourse with a female not his wife." Under this statute, D would be entitled to acquittal if, because of self-induced intoxication, he did not have the knowledge required for the offense, e.g., he did not know that he was having intercourse, he did not know that the female did not consent, or he did not know that the victim was a "female not his wife."

[b] Exception to the Rule⁸⁸

The Code recognizes one exception to the rule described immediately above. The exception relates to crimes defined in terms of recklessness. Ordinarily, a person acts "recklessly" as defined by the Code if "he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element of the offense exists or will result from his conduct."⁸⁹ However, the Code provides that if a person "due to self-induced intoxication is unaware of a risk of which he would have been aware had he been sober, such unawareness is immaterial" in a prosecution for which recklessness establishes criminal liability.⁹⁰ In other words, in a prosecution for recklessness, a voluntarily intoxicated defendant cannot negate proof of recklessness by introducing evidence of his intoxication-caused lack of awareness of a risk. As a practical matter, this means that a negligent actor may be convicted of a crime of recklessness, in violation of ordinary Model Penal Code culpability...