17.25 - A. IntoXIcation

• Jurisdiction: New York

A. Intoxication

The Penal Law provides that “[i]ntoxication is not, as such, a defense to a criminal charge; but in any prosecution for an offense, evidence of intoxication of the defendant may be offered by the defendant whenever it is relevant to negative [sic] an element of the crime charged.”²⁷⁸⁶ Since intoxication is not a complete defense, a prosecutor is under no duty to present evidence of a defendant’s intoxication to a grand jury or to charge a grand jury with respect to the intoxication defense. Prosecutors are not required to instruct grand juries on a possible defense of intoxication. Intoxication is a mitigating defense, merely reducing the gravity of an offense by negating an element.²⁷⁸⁷

Was intoxication sufficient to destroy the defendant’s ability to form the particular intent necessary for the crime charged,²⁷⁸⁸ and may it be considered on the issue of motive to commit the crime?²⁷⁸⁹ “Intoxication need not be to the extent of depriving the accused of all power or volition or of all ability to form an intent.”²⁷⁹⁰ Deliberate intoxication before the commission of the crime to give the defendant courage does not negate the intent.²⁷⁹¹

Intoxication may change the nature of the crime from one requiring intent to one requiring a lesser degree of mental culpability. For example, a charge of murder may be reduced to manslaughter due to the effect of intoxication on the defendant’s intent to commit the crime.²⁷⁹²

Although an intoxication charge may be given on the issue of intent, the Supreme Court has held that there is no due-process requirement that such a charge be given.²⁷⁹³ A jury’s consideration of voluntary intoxication on the issue of whether an accused possessed the mental state necessary for conviction is not a fundamental principle of justice.

Does chronic alcoholism constitute involuntary intoxication? The debate centers on whether chronic alcoholism is a “disease.” The Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for public intoxication and outlined the difficulty of conceptualizing the definition of chronic alcoholism.

Intoxication may be established by lay, medical or psychiatric testimony.²⁷⁹⁴ The opinions of nonexpert witnesses are competent to establish intoxication.²⁷⁹⁵ Also, prior arrests or convictions for intoxication are admissible.²⁷⁹⁶ In instructing the jurors, the court should charge that they “may” (not “must”) consider intoxication as negating specific intent.²⁷⁹⁷ The failure of the court to charge the possibility of intoxication as negating intent, regardless of the fact that the evidence of intoxication was raised by the prosecution rather than the defense, has been held reversible error,²⁷⁹⁸ just as it is reversible error for the court to simply read the intoxication defense statute to the jury without explaining its meaning and application to the evidence.²⁷⁹⁹ A charge on intoxication should be given if there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record. “Evidence of intoxication . . . requires more than a bare assertion by a defendant that he was intoxicated.”²⁸⁰⁰ An...