Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In criminal law, the intoxication defense is a defense by which a defendant may claim diminished responsibility on the basis of substance intoxication. Where a crime requires a certain mental state ( mens rea ) to break the law, those under the influence of an intoxicating substance may be considered to have reduced liability for their actions.
Accordingly, it only possible to say that the defence cannot argue that intoxication provides a defence, where recklessness has been shown on the fact, in crimes of basic intent. It is possible that the prosecution would be allowed, in certain circumstances, to dispense with the original mens rea entirely and rely solely on the voluntary ...
Strictly speaking, however, it could be argued that intoxication is not a defense, but a denial of mens rea; [10] the main difference being that a defense accepts the mens rea and actus reus of an offence are present. With intoxication, there is no acceptance of the mens rea of the offence. For offences of basic intent, the act itself is ...
DPP v Majewski [1976] UKHL 2 is a leading English criminal law case, establishing that voluntary intoxication such as by drugs or alcohol is no defence to crimes requiring only basic intent. The mens rea requirement is satisfied by the reckless behaviour of intoxicating oneself.
A college football player arrested for drunk driving despite no signs of intoxication can make his case to a jury that the officer violated his rights, a federal judge has ruled.
Voluntary intoxication will not satisfy the criterion that there must be an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition (s.2(1)(a) Homicide Act 1957) and therefore cannot be relied upon as grounds for the partial defence. [3]
The defense doesn’t always work, however. That same year, a Philadelphia nun, 41-year-old Kimberly Miller, claimed she was “sleep driving” after drinking “altar wine” and taking Ambien.
While White's defense team did argue successfully for a ruling of diminished capacity, resulting in a verdict of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder, an urban legend that the defense had blamed White's actions on the ingestion of sugar and junk food (the so-called "Twinkie defense") sprang up out of inaccurate media coverage.