Intoxication and Criminal Acts

Intoxication is defined as an impairment of mental or physical capacity as a result of the consumption of alcohol, drugs or some other substance. In most criminal cases, the abused substance is alcohol. It typically blunts perception, judgment and control and may lead to aggressive and anti-social behavior.

For criminal purposes, use of drugs is treated the same way if the party's passions are excited or his mental capacity impaired. The use of opiates will not result in this type of behavior, rather inducing a passive and dreamlike state; however addiction to these drugs may result in criminal behavior in order to support a habit.

Intoxication and Criminal Impact

Intoxication is voluntary if the defendant knowingly ingests the substance and is aware of the potential intoxicating effects. While intoxication may remove inhibition and dull judgment, thus leading to a crime that may not have otherwise been committed, voluntary intoxication is not a defense.

The state of intoxication is not, in itself, a mental disease. Thus it holds no validity in a plea of "temporary insanity." Nor is addiction a defense. Charges for public drunkenness and drug use have been found to be constitutional.
Prolonged alcohol addiction may induce symptoms such as delirium tremens and hallucinations that may fairly be termed psychotic episodes. In such a situation the claim of "temporary insanity" may be honored, despite the defendant's responsibility for using the intoxicants.

Intent

On the other hand, some crimes require "specific intent" as a material component of guilt. A defendant may successfully argue that extreme intoxication precluded the mental clarity to harbor such intent. Defendants have shown that they were too intoxicated to commit larceny, robbery, intend to kill or to rape or commit an aggravated assault.

If, however, a crime requires merely "general intent" (usually connoting general malice or inclination) such intent is assumed simply due to the fact that the defendant committed the crime. In this situation, voluntary intoxication is not a defense. The distinction between general and specific intent is a fine line that has caused years of legal debate.

Recklessness and Negligence

The mental state of "recklessness" usually requires that a defendant be aware of a substantial risk and choose to disregard it. Intoxication can be sufficiently extreme as to prevent the awareness of the risk. However when recklessness is a component of the crime, unawareness of the risk as a result of intoxication is not a defense. The theory is that there is enough recklessness involved in gross intoxication.

The same theory applies to the mental state of "negligence" when pertinent to a crime. Negligence is defined as a defendant being unaware of a threat even though a "reasonable man" would have been. The theory holds that a reasonable man should also know the potential effects of intoxication on one's ability to perceive dangerous situations.

In some jurisdictions, voluntary intoxication may not gain acquittal but may contribute to a finding for a lesser offense. Because intoxication reduces capacity to premeditate, a murder conviction may be reduced from 1st degree to 2nd, or from 2nd degree to manslaughter. In other jurisdictions, voluntary intoxication is never a defense for the commission of a crime or a factor in the reduction of an offense.