Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Where the defendant is on trial for a crime of specific intent, his state of intoxication will be relevant to whether he formed the required intent. [8] This may prevent the defendant from having the required mens rea. If the defendant's intoxication is so significant as to prevent any sort of intent, this can lead to acquittal.
The criminal code in question may require proof of various levels of intent. This may range from premeditation, through various degrees of intent or willingness to commit a crime, general recklessness, and finally no intent at all in some instances of strict liability. Intoxication may serve as a defense against proving more specific forms of ...
[6] [7] Where the defendant is on trial for a crime of specific intent, his state of intoxication will be relevant to whether he formed the required intent. [4] If the defendant's intoxication is so significant as to prevent any sort of intent, this can lead to acquittal. A reduction in the strength of the formed intent is insufficient. [8]
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.
The defense argued Jeremy Cruz was too drunk to form the intent to murder his wife. ... FREEHOLD A Monmouth County jury took less than two hours Wednesday to reject a Lacey man's intoxication ...
In some jurisdictions, intoxication may negate specific intent, a particular kind of mens rea applicable only to some crimes. For example, lack of specific intent might reduce murder to manslaughter. Voluntary intoxication nevertheless often will provide basic intent, e.g., the intent required for manslaughter. [9]
Voluntary intoxication can be a defense for specific crimes (larceny, attempt, solicitation, conspiracy and so on), but not for general intent crimes (arson, assault, battery, rape etc.). The defendant has the burden of proof for voluntary intoxication. Claiming that he would not commit the crime when sober is not a defense.
whether specific intent/recklessness excused by intoxication R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 is an English criminal law precedent that self-induced (voluntary) intoxication , however extreme, is no defence to manslaughter , provided a loss of control is foreseen by becoming intoxicated.